Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Let's see, irony meter or eye roll? Hmmm, can't decide.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sanders has faults, but the Iraq war is not one of them. When it came down to authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq, Sanders voted NO, Clinton voted YES. That's it, right there, and that cost Clinton the 2008 nomination, because Iraq was THE issue, during the primaries. Iraq has faded from the public eye now, but it doesn't change the fact that she blew the most consequential vote of her Senate career, and Sanders got it right.

AND, Sanders voted against the first gulf war too. So trying to paint him as the equivalent of Clinton is ridiculous.

So you cherry pick a single vote and ignore the rest? Got it.

 

[Belz...]

As noted, this was addressed in previous posts.

Well none of us can find those, so could you please put up a link to those? I'm genuinely interested, by the way.

And I think you're reading more into my comments than I actually said.

How so? You said this:

And if there is a consistent pattern of benefit.

I didn't reading more into it, but simply asking you to support this because while I don't doubt that it could be true, I'd like to see some evidence.

 

[Belz...]

Let's see, irony meter or eye roll? Hmmm, can't decide.

Oh, could you drop the condescending tone? You're in no position to look down on other posters.

You've not shown how Bob's post means what you said it did, and your claim that I didn't understand it is nothing but that -- a claim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, could you drop the condescending tone? You're in no position to look down on other posters.

You've not shown how Bob's post means what you said it did, and your claim that I didn't understand it is nothing but that -- a claim.

It's hard for me not to be condescending when you can't see something so obvious. I'm flabbergasted.

I agree to disagree with you.

I fail to see why you are having such a problem with something so simple and obvious as quantity doesn't prove quality.

 

[Fudbucker]

Clinton consistently polls above Sanders in head to head polls. That's what I'm talking about. If her polls are terrible, but she's polling 10 points higher than Sanders, then how do you describe Sanders' numbers?

The latest polling has Sanders, nationally, trailing by six, but that's an irrelevant number, since it will be decided on a state by state basis. He's projected to win the next state.

Sanders numbers on trustworthiness, likeability, and hypothetical match-ups against GOP candidates are much higher than Clinton's.

 

[Fudbucker]

So you cherry pick a single vote and ignore the rest? Got it.

Singling out the Use of Force authorization is cherry-picking? OK, whatever. Hey, you know what else is cherry-picking a single vote? The vote to impeach Clinton. I bet you didn't hold that one vote against any GOP members, right?

 

[Belz...]

It's hard for me not to be condescending when you can't see something so obvious. I'm flabbergasted.

Yes, that's exactly the behaviour that I'm describing.

 

[wareyin]

The latest polling has Sanders, nationally, trailing by six, but that's an irrelevant number, since it will be decided on a state by state basis. He's projected to win the next state.

Sanders numbers on trustworthiness, likeability, and hypothetical match-ups against GOP candidates are much higher than Clinton's.

National polls that show Clinton ahead of Sanders don't matter, but national polling that shows Sanders in a positive light does? Way to cherry pick the results to get what you want them to say!

 

[Fudbucker]

National polls that show Clinton ahead of Sanders don't matter, but national exit polling that shows Sanders in a positive light does? Way to cherry pick the results to get what you want them to say!

"Moreover, among the 28 percent of Democrats who consider honesty and trustworthiness the candidate quality that mattered most in their choice, eight in 10 voted for Sanders."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...w-bernie-sanders-beat-hillary-clinton-n534601

But yes, nationally, how much the public dislikes you is very important for the general election. How you compared against your primary opponent nationally is meaningless because you're not running against them anymore.

 

[wareyin]

"Moreover, among the 28 percent of Democrats who consider honesty and trustworthiness the candidate quality that mattered most in their choice, eight in 10 voted for Sanders."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...w-bernie-sanders-beat-hillary-clinton-n534601

But yes, nationally, how much the public dislikes you is very important for the general election. How you compared against your primary opponent nationally is meaningless because you're not running against them anymore.

Clinton is still running against Sanders. Moreover, you quoted a poll that compares Clinton to Sanders, then claimed that "how you compared against your primary opponent nationally is meaningless...". Would you care to try again without contradicting yourself within the same post?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The latest polling has Sanders, nationally, trailing by six, but that's an irrelevant number, since it will be decided on a state by state basis. He's projected to win the next state.

Yet, the aggregate of state-by-state is magically the national number ...

I don't understand your focus on state. Yes, certain states Sanders has done exceedingly well. But that's irrelevant to the total. There are obviously states that are more important than others. One example being Clintons win in TX - that netted her 75 more delegates than Sanders. His big wins in WA HI and AK netted him 35 more delegates than Clinton.

There's no benefit sense talking about number of states won without this important context you keep ignoring.

Sanders numbers on trustworthiness, likeability, and hypothetical match-ups against GOP candidates are much higher than Clinton's.

Much higher ? I don't think so. But .... so what ?

 

[Fudbucker]

Clinton is still running against Sanders. Moreover, you quoted a poll that compares Clinton to Sanders, then claimed that "how you compared against your primary opponent nationally is meaningless...". Would you care to try again without contradicting yourself within the same post?

It's not a contradiction. Hillary is a terrible candidate BECAUSE she is disliked and distrusted by so many people. If she were running for dog-catcher, it wouldn't matter what her national polling is, but she's running for national office, so it does matter. The exit polling simply confirms what we already know from national polling: people don't like her.

It's not just the natural contempt people feel for politicians. They really don't like Hillary. Obama's favorability numbers are about even. Kasich is +7. Biden is +10. Since the primaries started, Clinton has consistently been underwater by double digits, sometimes 20 points. There are only two politicians left that are despised by that much: Cruz and Trump. Good company to be in, huh?

Think about it: do you think Bernie would still be in it if Hillary was a good candidate? Would he be getting 80% of the trustworthy vote? Would a 74 year old man be clobbering her on the youth vote? Some of this is because Bernie has turned out to be a pretty good politician, but most of it is disgust with Hillary: her coziness with Wall Street, her scandals, her past votes and lies about dodging sniper fire. She hasn't put Bernie away, and if she were any good, Bernie would never have gotten out of the starting gate, much less be in a position to actually win the nomination in April.

 

[Belz...]

It's not a contradiction. Hillary is a terrible candidate BECAUSE she is disliked and distrusted by so many people. If she were running for dog-catcher, it wouldn't matter what her national polling is, but she's running for national office, so it does matter. The exit polling simply confirms what we already know from national polling: people don't like her.

And yet she's still ahead, so what does that say about how important that is?

 

[wareyin]

It's not a contradiction. Hillary is a terrible candidate BECAUSE she is disliked and distrusted by so many people. If she were running for dog-catcher, it wouldn't matter what her national polling is, but she's running for national office, so it does matter. The exit polling simply confirms what we already know from national polling: people don't like her.

It's not just the natural contempt people feel for politicians. They really don't like Hillary. Obama's favorability numbers are about even. Kasich is +7. Biden is +10. Since the primaries started, Clinton has consistently been underwater by double digits, sometimes 20 points. There are only two politicians left that are despised by that much: Cruz and Trump. Good company to be in, huh?

Think about it: do you think Bernie would still be in it if Hillary was a good candidate? Would he be getting 80% of the trustworthy vote? Would a 74 year old man be clobbering her on the youth vote? Some of this is because Bernie has turned out to be a pretty good politician, but most of it is disgust with Hillary: her coziness with Wall Street, her scandals, her past votes and lies about dodging sniper fire. She hasn't put Bernie away, and if she were any good, Bernie would never have gotten out of the starting gate, much less be in a position to actually win the nomination in April.

You keep claiming, in contrast to the evidence, that Clinton is a terrible candidate. Which candidate currently running is better, and why do the majority of people pick Clinton over that candidate when asked to choose between them?

 

[dudalb]

And yet she's still ahead, so what does that say about how important that is?

And Hilary does not need to liked;she just needs to be disliked less then her opponents. And from the polls, people outside his supporters in the GOP dislike Trump a lot,lot,more.

 

[dudalb]

You keep claiming, in contrast to the evidence, that Clinton is a terrible candidate. Which candidate currently running is better, and why do the majority of people pick Clinton over that candidate when asked to choose between them?

That's the point;they might dislike Clinton, but they dislike Trump more...a lot more.

 

[Manopolus]

You keep claiming, in contrast to the evidence, that Clinton is a terrible candidate. Which candidate currently running is better, and why do people pick Clinton over that candidate when asked to choose between them?

All you really have to do is listen to the people that vote for her to find the answer. It's quite clearly a false sense of practicality. Despite the fact that Sanders quite clearly leads the independent vote by large numbers, they seem to think that fear of "socialism" will somehow scare off independent voters. The fact that there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary doesn't seem to matter. As long as the opinion manufacturers continue to repeat themselves often enough, the illusion holds.

So... basically it's the usual reason, despite the fact that this reason is completely unfounded. Establishment politics at its worst. Unfortunately, it is also a well proven method of losing in the general election (see: John Kerry for details -- Dean would have likely won the G.E. that year if he had gotten that far).

Also known as the politics of fear (of losing), democrat style.

With Clinton you also have the feminist reactionary vote. If she was male and all else exactly the same, she would have already lost.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yet, the aggregate of state-by-state is magically the national number ...

And if she were a good candidate, she'd be clobbering him, not six points ahead. Not losing five of the last six by 50 points.

Let's remember something: Clinton has already failed at this before. She ran a horrible campaign last time and was blown out of the water by a Freshman senator from out of left field. So she already has a history of sucking at running for national office.

People keep thinking: well she's beating Sanders, she must be a good candidate! But she shouldn't just be beating him. It goes back to an NFL team playing a competitive game of football against a college team. That's not supposed to happen! The NFL team would be booed out of the stadium.

Clinton was caught completely flat-footed by an old socialist nobody had even heard of. Hmm, where have we heard that story before? She won Iowa, literally, by coin tosses. She was blown out of the water in N.H. by 20+ points. You would think she would have learned from losing to Obama: beware of challenges by nameless Senators. So add that to her list of negative: she can't learn from mistakes.

I don't understand your focus on state. Yes, certain states Sanders has done exceedingly well. But that's irrelevant to the total. There are obviously states that are more important than others. One example being Clintons win in TX - that netted her 75 more delegates than Sanders. His big wins in WA HI and AK netted him 35 more delegates than Clinton.

I'm focusing on states where Bernie crushed her just like I would focus on UNLV making a touchdown against the Broncos. WHAT??? How does that happen? And it's not like it's a one-off event. He's shellacked her in other states too. Pointing to her beating him by large margins in the South doesn't help because she's supposed to be running the table on him.

There's no benefit sense talking about number of states won without this important context you keep ignoring.

The context is that Hillary keeps losing to this guy. How??? When you look at the exit polling, you see how: people don't like her. She's not a good candidate at the state level (except, strangely, in the South), and she's not a good national candidate.

Much higher ? I don't think so. But .... so what ?

In some polls, yes much higher. In all recent polling, Sanders does better.

So what that Bernie outperforms Hillary against the competition? Really? Six months ago if I had said Bernie Sanders will do better against the GOP than Hillary, you would have posted a row of laughing emoticons. But here we are, and Bernie is outperforming her.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And if she were a good candidate, she'd be clobbering him, not six points ahead. Not losing five of the last six by 50 points.

Let's remember something: Clinton has already failed at this before. She ran a horrible campaign last time and was blown out of the water by a Freshman senator from out of left field. So she already has a history of sucking at running for national office.

I don't understand how it is possible that both Bernie is clobbering her, and she was blown out of the water by obama. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

She's winning bigger over sanders than obama won over her. This was previously pointed out to you, and you responded:

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.

So which is it ???

People keep thinking: well she's beating Sanders, she must be a good candidate! But she shouldn't just be beating him. It goes back to an NFL team playing a competitive game of football against a college team. That's not supposed to happen! The NFL team would be booed out of the stadium.

Clinton was caught completely flat-footed by an old socialist nobody had even heard of. Hmm, where have we heard that story before? She won Iowa, literally, by coin tosses. She was blown out of the water in N.H. by 20+ points. You would think she would have learned from losing to Obama: beware of challenges by nameless Senators. So add that to her list of negative: she can't learn from mistakes.

Meh. She learned, that's why she's winning. By more than Obama was beating her.

I'm focusing on states where Bernie crushed her just like I would focus on UNLV making a touchdown against the Broncos. WHAT??? How does that happen? And it's not like it's a one-off event. He's shellacked her in other states too. Pointing to her beating him by large margins in the South doesn't help because she's supposed to be running the table on him.

The context is that Hillary keeps losing to this guy. How??? When you look at the exit polling, you see how: people don't like her. She's not a good candidate at the state level (except, strangely, in the South), and she's not a good national candidate.

No, the context is she's won big where it counts to reach the delegate count need to win the nomination.

This "supposed to be running the table" on him is as much straw.

In some polls, yes much higher. In all recent polling, Sanders does better.

So what that Bernie outperforms Hillary against the competition? Really? Six months ago if I had said Bernie Sanders will do better against the GOP than Hillary, you would have posted a row of laughing emoticons. But here we are, and Bernie is outperforming her.

You mean hypothetically outperforms. I'm not impressed with 6 month out hypothetical polls.