Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[angrysoba]

Yeah, I suppose if you want imprecise, vague snapshots, to discuss in bar conversations, that is probably the predominant measuring stick. The only polls that most serious political science analysts look at are the trends in previous local and state elections over at least the last 3-5 cycles,...if you are trying to determine whether or not a state is stable or shifting in its support of the current dominant political environment.

I would be interested to know how you come to this conclusion. Do you have a cite for this claim?

Which is what I said in the post you are responding to:

That was just a quotation error. I didn't type it; I just forgot to put the quote tags round it.

I'm saying that Sanders can probably turn Alaska blue this year with no further investment by anyone, so long as his name is on the Ballot as the Democratic representative, especially if either Trump or Cruz is the Republican nominee. But, I'm pretty sure that Hillary couldn't turn Alaska blue against any of the three Republicans still in the race regardless of who wins the Rep. nomination even if she and the democratic party invested time and money into such an effort.

But what do you base that claim on?

nope, not a viable path for third party candidacy with regard to the presidency in the current system.

No.

You just come to the Bullish on Bernie thread to troll those who support him.

How sad.

It's not trolling; it is a simple statement of fact. Just because there is a thread about Bernie Sanders it doesn't mean that only people supporting him and indulging in a fantasy are allowed to post here. I actually want him to win and am just saying that I don't think he can.

The problem is that you are mistaking emotional investment for rational analysis. I am not particularly emotionally invested in this and am not being clouded by wishful thinking. But neither am I against Sanders, so I am not typing this kind of thing out of mischievousness. Pointing out that Sanders won't win is not trolling.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are adding meaning to his post, then. Why didn't you just submit your own answer rather than pretend that someone else's post meant something else, I'll probably never know.

I'm not adding meaning. You don't get the meaning, you said so.

I think we've reached the end of this exchange.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, not my point, but whatever. Hillary's awesome. She's the best candidate ever. People think she's a liar and untrustworthy and she makes up **** about dodging sniper fire, and she voted for Iraq, and Trump is the only person more unpopular than her, but none of that matters. In Hillaryland, the only thing that matters is she has a lead on Sanders.

Truly, the Democrats are blessed to have her.

Think Sanders has no faults, never made a gaffe, never voted for the Iraq war?

Gun lobby votes
Made a gaffe just yesterday he had to backtrack on this morning dismissing Trumps abortion comments as unimportant
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/

Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, backed Obama’s Libyan debacle and supports an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War.

More problematic for the Senator in Birkenstocks is the little-known fact that Bernie Sanders himself voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And you have no argument for why Hillary is a strong candidate. Your only argument is that, out of 2200 pledged delegates so far, Clinton's ahead of the old socialist by 263. Wow. Hillary is a real juggernaut.

You need to go back and look at the Obama revolution in 2008. At this point in time in 2008, Obama was a grand total of 156 delegates ahead, and that included the Super Delegates.

In the final count, of Pledged Delegates, Obama had just 102 more of them than Hillary did.

Hillary has a larger gap in JUST Pledged Delegates over Bernie than Obama had over her in both Pledged and Unpledged at this point. On top of that her current lead in pledged is already double that which Obama ended up with at the end of the race.

So yes, compared to 2008 Obama vs Hillary, yes, Hillary is wiping the floor with Bernie.

 

[Trakar]

Yet you can't guarantee that said candidate will turn out to be the candidate you think they will be.

I don't give candidates money so that it will convince them to do something I want done, I give candidates money because I want them to be able to spend less time and effort fund-raising and more time doing the things they've already convinced they will do with regard to my primary public policy concerns. I'm not giving them money to bride their behavior, I'm giving them money because we're both working toward a common agenda.

I know I don't share a very common agenda with the overwhelming majority of her major donors.

While I think Sanders is on the side of women and minorities, as I've said over and over, I don't think he will be an effective POTUS. I know you don't agree. I've heard all the arguments. I'm not persuaded.

I think we have fundamental differences regarding leadership, especially in connection to the role of POTUS.

My answer stands. I don't think a Sanders POTUS will make a difference. I do think a Clinton POTUS will.

I understand, and for the record: IMO, the only thing that can elect Sanders to the White House is a committed and enthused majority of the American electorate that will work in partnership with his administration to enact the public policy goals that will benefit the overwhelming majority of all Americans. I don't think Clinton will be elected POTUS.

Don't agree.

Agree or not, look at the last 8-25 years, putting her in the White House will be like throwing gasoline on smoldering coals!

I just don't buy this narrative that it's Sanders or bust.

Sanders is the only one worth the effort, all the others are varying degrees of the same evil,...and even Sanders is a sinner, but he makes it feel like there is still a way to save us all.

Reality is pessimistic, but it does permit, at least temporary reversals of entropy, that is the essence of life, and optimism.

I focus and strive for the best, and prepare for the worst

Which in 2016 election terms is probably Sanders and Cruz, from my perspective. With Kasich and Hillary at about the same place somewhere right around the dividing line. If Kasich and Hillary were both Democrats they'd be fighting over the same base of democratic supporters and donors.

Amazingly, I remember how I used to think Kasich was too far to the right, and Hillary seemed a lot further to the Left. When Kasich was in the US House and Hillary was still with the Rose Law firm, and the board of Wall-Mart...hmmm, well, I'm sure she seemed Left at some point, even if I can't recall it right now.

 

[Fudbucker]

The majority of Democrats so far seem to think she is the best option. Whatever her faults, it is apparently not enough.

Once again, it's irrelevant that she has a majority.

Think of it like this: The Denver Broncos are playing against Notre Dame. In the 4th quarter, the Broncos are only up by a field goal. Do you think Bronco fans would be happy that Notre Dame is still in the game? That's not supposed to happen. The best college team in the country would be slaughtered by the worst team in the NFL. It shouldn't be a contest, and neither should the Democratic primary.

 

[Fudbucker]

You need to go back and look at the Obama revolution in 2008. At this point in time in 2008, Obama was a grand total of 156 delegates ahead, and that included the Super Delegates.

In the final count, of Pledged Delegates, Obama had just 102 more of them than Hillary did.

Hillary has a larger gap in JUST Pledged Delegates over Bernie than Obama had over her in both Pledged and Unpledged at this point. On top of that her current lead in pledged is already double that which Obama ended up with at the end of the race.

So yes, compared to 2008 Obama vs Hillary, yes, Hillary is wiping the floor with Bernie.

It's not 2008. It's 2016. If Hillary were "wiping the floor", she wouldn't be losing states by 50 point margins. She wouldn't be losing 5 out of 6 of the last states. She wouldn't be projected to lose Wisconsin. When you "wipe the floor" against someone, you don't have losing streaks against them.

I think Hillary could murder a child on live TV and some of you would still support her AND point to the fact that the kid didn't suffer much as a sign of Clinton's compassion.

 

[Trakar]

Except you don't give millions to them, personally.

I believe the maximum I can personally give to them is more in the range of $2,700 per election cycle. I do make some national group donations and local/state political donations, but no, I haven't seen any, so far, that I would feel inspired to donate that much to, ...even if I had that much available to give.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Once again, it's irrelevant that she has a majority.

Think of it like this: The Denver Broncos are playing against Notre Dame. In the 4th quarter, the Broncos are only up by a field goal. Do you think Bronco fans would be happy that Notre Dame is still in the game? That's not supposed to happen. The best college team in the country would be slaughtered by the worst team in the NFL. It shouldn't be a contest, and neither should the Democratic primary.

True, but at the end of the day you gave a pro team with a bad win and a college team with a loss. Out of the teams in the competition, there is a clear team to advance.

 

[Trakar]

...It's not trolling; it is a simple statement of fact. Just because there is a thread about Bernie Sanders it doesn't mean that only people supporting him and indulging in a fantasy are allowed to post here. I actually want him to win and am just saying that I don't think he can.

The problem is that you are mistaking emotional investment for rational analysis. I am not particularly emotionally invested in this and am not being clouded by wishful thinking. But neither am I against Sanders, so I am not typing this kind of thing out of mischievousness. Pointing out that Sanders won't win is not trolling.

If you say so, I must believe this is your perspective.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Once again, it's irrelevant that she has a majority.

Think of it like this: The Denver Broncos are playing against Notre Dame. In the 4th quarter, the Broncos are only up by a field goal. Do you think Bronco fans would be happy that Notre Dame is still in the game? That's not supposed to happen. The best college team in the country would be slaughtered by the worst team in the NFL. It shouldn't be a contest, and neither should the Democratic primary.

Perhaps by irrelevant you are referring to something other than Sanders' chance of winning?

And I don't think Sanders is down the equivalent of a field goal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not 2008. It's 2016. If Hillary were "wiping the floor", she wouldn't be losing states by 50 point margins. She wouldn't be losing 5 out of 6 of the last states. She wouldn't be projected to lose Wisconsin. When you "wipe the floor" against someone, you don't have losing streaks against them.[snipped nonsense].

You can say the same thing about Sanders. If he had a chance in hell he wouldn't have lost states by equally wide margins.

And your cherry picking again, Clinton won the previous 7 states in a row.

You should at least look for another argument. This one is not helping your cause.

 

[Trakar]

What do you define as corruption by this private group?

In the same manner that a corporate board may be corrupt and/or incompetent through the misdirection resources to personal goals or ill-considered and wasteful management and projects as opposed to what is best for the growth of the company and the profits and interests of all of the shareholders.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Canadian Imperial Bank, UBS, Fidelity Investments, Ameriprise, Golden Tree Asset, Apollo Management Holdings, …

“One more thing, love your pantsuit!” – Bernie

 

[angrysoba]

If you say so, I must believe this is your perspective.

Yes, thank you.

 

[angrysoba]

It's not 2008. It's 2016. If Hillary were "wiping the floor", she wouldn't be losing states by 50 point margins. She wouldn't be losing 5 out of 6 of the last states. She wouldn't be projected to lose Wisconsin. When you "wipe the floor" against someone, you don't have losing streaks against them.
I think Hillary could murder a child on live TV and some of you would still support her AND point to the fact that the kid didn't suffer much as a sign of Clinton's compassion.

Just to reiterate something I mentioned already. A fivethirtyeight podcast that I listened to from March 15th argued that Sanders was all but finished. As part of that analysis they even pointed out that they still fully expected Sanders to win the next 5 or 6 contests because they were in areas where Sanders was doing well in the polls. They haven't changed their opinion on that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

In the same manner that a corporate board may be corrupt and/or incompetent through the misdirection resources to personal goals or ill-considered and wasteful management and projects as opposed to what is best for the growth of the company and the profits and interests of all of the shareholders.

Thank you for a perfectly reasonable definition.

 

[uke2se]

Suggested term: "Black Knighting" - desperately defending someone/thing, greatly minimizing weaknesses or claiming that they are strenghts.

"The fact that he isn't losing big enough proves that he's winning."

 

[Foolmewunz]

Honestly, Argumemnon, how hard can it be?

Let's go back to the beginning:



Number of mistakes is analogous to number of claims there are miracles and ghosts.

It's the quality of the evidence not the quantity.

Your hypothetical was not relevant given the example we started with had more evidence of being benign than of being purposeful.

too late in the game to matter
easily corrected​

Both of those qualities meant this was not evidence of purposeful shenanigans.

Apologies for starting this. I didn't realize Argumemnon was Belz. There is nothing to be gained from this conversation.

 

[Belz...]

If so, what's their motivation?

Same as any fanboy: faith.

I'm not adding meaning. You don't get the meaning, you said so.

And now you lie. Why? Is it so hard to admit that you erred?