Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Fudbucker]

And if she were a good candidate, she'd be clobbering him, not six points ahead.

That makes little sense. Are you saying that Sanders is an even more terrible candidate?

No, Sander's was hobbled from the start, very much a JV candidate. He had never run for national office, he had almost no name recognition, no money, no organization, no SuperPAC's, no super-delegates, and is not even a Democrat. None of that was true for Hillary. She had every advantage you could think of for a candidate starting a race: superPac's, money, endorsements, universal name recognition, a popular ex-president shilling for her, the whole DNC was behind her. It's incredible that Sanders did as well as he did with all the disadvantages he had.

"DES MOINES — This fall the words of a Hillary Clinton backer were posted like a locker-room taunt on the wall at Bernie Sanders’s Iowa headquarters: “There is no Sanders organization.”

The quote, from Jerry Crawford, a leader of Iowa’s Democratic establishment, was meant to enrage and goad the Sanders staff, and it did the job."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/u...-early-lift-builds-iowa-ground-operation.html

It is mostly because of Hillary's negative attributes and overall crumminess as a candidate that there was an opening for someone like Sanders. Had Hillary been worth anything, Sanders would have been another Martin O'Malley or James Webb.

The first test of Hillary's campaign came when she had to address the ongoing email scandal. She failed badly, making tasteless jokes, changing her story, and ultimately surrendering a server which she had earlier vowed to not surrender, which we learned over the summer had A) classified emails on it and B) some of those emails were top secret. I think this gave Sanders the opening he needed.

Sanders still hasn't recovered totally from being a socialist nobody just a few months ago. But as Sander's popularity has increased, Hillary's margins of victory have narrowed, and Bernie's have widened, and the momentum has shifted over to him. Hillary's lead in New York has shrunk from 48 points to 12. She will likely lose the next contest. Hillary's last win (Arizona), was by 17%. Sanders was by 45% (Washington) and 60% (Alaska) and 40% (Hawaii). Had Sanders had even half the name-recognition Hillary had from the start (forget all the other advantages), Hillary would be losing yet another primary battle with an unknown Senator.

I guess it says the Dems don't care about honesty and trustworthiness, because Bernie wins those people by 50+ points.

You seem unduly focused on a small subset of the electorate. Isn't the whole population more important than a subset of it when it comes to voting?

It's the fact that the subset of the Democratic electorate that cares about honesty and trustworthiness is so little is what depresses me. Yes, I harp about it. I think more people should care whether their nominees are honest and trustworthy. I know that's heresy among Hillary supporters.

Democrats look likely to nominate a person even they think isn't honest and trustworthy.

I think you just defeated your own argument, now.

I have never claimed Sanders will likely be the nominee. He's still quite the underdog. His chances aren't that good. My whole point has been the fact that it's April, and we're still talking about his chances, and we'll be talking about them in May, and probably in June, and we may be talking about his chances in November and whether Hillary supporters will support him.

 

[recursive prophet]

Interesting thread. I've never been close to as conflicted about who to vote for in an election as I am now. I'll be voting for Bernie in the Cal primary, primarily because he polls better and Hillary's wins were mostly in red states. Also, if the gop drops him on the second vote, it appears many of his fans would vote for Bernie.

It really troubles me that the Clinton/Sanders campaigns are heating up the rhetoric. IMHO neither is looking to what's best for the progressive movement nationwide, on all levels of government. They 'took the pledge' in Iowa and pimped the ludicrous ethanol subsidy, and both have made hypocritical, misleading comments.

If I could pick the next leader of the military world, it would be Hillary. She has both the experience and support in the congress to actually get things done. Bernie's endorsers are as few as Trumps. And at least Trump would have the house vote numbers.

Still, Hillary has a lot of negatives. She lost her last attempt to an unknown, black, one term senator with and Arabic name. Now she's polling lower for the general than a 76 year old Jewish socialist. It's sad that likability plays such a huge roll in voter selection. That a gruff voice and scary laugh could prevent the best candidate and our first eminently qualified woman from winning the election. But I see this one as way too important to ignore electability so I'll vote for Sanders unless the polls change. Looks like Trump may be in trouble, but he's gotten this far by being underestimated. I still fear Paul Ryan being drafted in a locked convention. Unlikely, but worrisome in a year when nothing is as it was.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... And at least Trump would have the house vote numbers.

Trump is a world disaster waiting to happen. I suggest you look closer if you don't know that.

... Still, Hillary has a lot of negatives. She lost her last attempt to an unknown, black, one term senator with and Arabic name.

Are you a low information voter?

... Now she's polling lower for the general than a 76 year old Jewish socialist.

No she isn't. Unless you are talking about a single "Bloomberg" poll which has so minimal of a polling track record that 538 doesn't even have a reliability rating for them.

With that one exception, nationally, she's polled ahead of Sanders consistently.

It's sad that likability plays such a huge roll in voter selection. That a gruff voice and scary laugh [A persistently negative 40 year campaign against the Clintons that has been for the most part dishonest and false] could prevent the best candidate and our first eminently qualified woman from winning the election. ...

ftfy

 

[Manopolus]

You misunderstand. You claimed that people are voting for her because they think she will do better than Sanders in the national. If the majority think she will get more votes, this becomes a self-fulfilling way of thinking.

Not if they intend to get votes from anybody but The Democratic Party. Those alone won't do it.

 

[Manopolus]

"people are voting for her because they think she will do better than Sanders in the national [as POTUS]"

Fixed that for everyone.

Yeah... that hasn't ever been the argument... at least not that I've ever heard.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah... that hasn't ever been the argument... at least not that I've ever heard.

Are you being sarcastic?

Pretty sure I've said that very thing in dozens of posts. And I'm not the only one making that argument. You must have those blinders up too high.

 

[The Don]

I hope he wins.

This is something a lot of right-wingers are also saying (not that I'm suggesting that you're a right winger). I presume that's because they think that if Sanders is the Democratic Party candidate then the GOP candidate (whoever it turns out to be) will be more likely to win than if Hillary is the candidate.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is something a lot of right-wingers are also saying (not that I'm suggesting that you're a right winger). I presume that's because they think that if Sanders is the Democratic Party candidate then the GOP candidate (whoever it turns out to be) will be more likely to win than if Hillary is the candidate.

Sometimes it's just strange bedfellows as both sides have the same target - Hillary. Sometimes, though, it's legitimate right wing PAC money. The worst the conservatives portray Bernie as at present is a fuzzy-haired but lovable non-conformist. He'll grow horns and get the pitchfork if he gets the nomination. The demographics of the country are against the GOP taking the White House and they know it. Their only route is if the Dems pick a totally unelectable nominee, and right or wrong, they see that as Bernie.

 

[Belz...]

Sanders still hasn't recovered totally from being a socialist nobody just a few months ago. But as Sander's popularity has increased, Hillary's margins of victory have narrowed, and Bernie's have widened, and the momentum has shifted over to him.

I don't think that you are I are watching the same primaries.

It's the fact that the subset of the Democratic electorate that cares about honesty and trustworthiness is so little is what depresses me.

How do you know they don't? Has it occured to you that not everybody thinks that Hillary is untrustworthy?

I have never claimed Sanders will likely be the nominee.

You said she was a terrible candidate, however.

 

[wareyin]

I don't think that you are I are watching the same primaries.

If you cherry pick a few states that have always looked good for Sanders, you can claim large margins of victory, even though none of those margins actually translated into large numbers of delegates.

How do you know they don't? Has it occured to you that not everybody thinks that Hillary is untrustworthy?

Indeed, the GOP meme that Clinton is untrustworthy hasn't been substantiated, it has only been adopted by Sanders supporters as an angle of attack.

You said she was a terrible candidate, however.

Yes, and he hasn't been able to explain which candidate is better, nor why Clinton is beating whichever candidate he claims is better.

 

[Fudbucker]

If you cherry pick a few states that have always looked good for Sanders, you can claim large margins of victory, even though none of those margins actually translated into large numbers of delegates.

It's not "cherry-picking" to point out that Sanders won the last 5 out of 6, and most of those were very lopsided victories, he's the odds-on favorite in the next contest, and Hillary's lead in the state where she was a Senator has dropped a lot. That's pretty much the definition of momentum: when you are winning consistently, your opponent is losing, and their support is shrinking.

The momentum has shifted repeatedly in the race: Bernie had it coming out of New Hampshire, then Hillary took it back with wins in the South, and now Bernie has it again.

Indeed, the GOP meme that Clinton is untrustworthy hasn't been substantiated, it has only been adopted by Sanders supporters as an angle of attack.

Except for all the polling about how untrustworthy and unlikeable Hillary is. Do you guys even follow politics?

"In a brand new Washington Post-ABC News national poll, just 37 percent of people believe Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy while 57 percent say they don't think she is."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bers-are-lower-than-ever-it-might-not-matter/
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton register net negative ratings in double digits, indicating the front-runners for each party's presidential nominations are viewed negatively at historic levels, according to a new CBS/New York Times poll.

That makes Trump and Clinton viewed more unfavorably than any front-runner for either party since 1984, when CBS began polling voters on the question.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

I don't get some of you Hillary supporters. Presumably you pay attention to politics. The evidence could not be any clearer: people don't like Hillary and don't trust her. It's not some Sander's conspiracy. Poll after poll shows the same result.

Yes, and he hasn't been able to explain which candidate is better, nor why Clinton is beating whichever candidate he claims is better.

Sanders is clearly the better candidate. For Sanders to be where he is now, with what he started with, is incredible. He's not even a Democrat and Hillary has what? A 15% lead in pledged delegates? How does a non-Democrat, in April, have a chance of beating a Democrat in the Democratic primaries? How does a non-Democrat beat a Democrat by outrageous margins in any state? Either the non-Democrat is really really good (and should be the nominee) or the Democrat is really really bad (and shouldn't be the nominee).

We KNOW Hillary is a terrible candidate. It's not like 2008 didn't happen. That was hers to win and she lost it. And here we are in 2012, and she's in a dogfight with yet another unknown Senator.

But apart from all that, she's fantastic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not "cherry-picking" to point out that Sanders won the last 5 out of 6, and most of those were very lopsided victories, he's the odds-on favorite in the next contest, and Hillary's lead in the state where she was a Senator has dropped a lot. That's pretty much the definition of momentum: when you are winning consistently, your opponent is losing, and their support is shrinking.

The momentum has shifted repeatedly in the race: Bernie had it coming out of New Hampshire, then Hillary took it back with wins in the South, and now Bernie has it again....

This is indeed cherry picked delusion, but don't let the arguments against it deter you.

 

[Fudbucker]

This is indeed cherry picked delusion, but don't let the arguments against it deter you.

Since you think attaching extra significance to the Iraq war vote is an example of "cherry picking", I'm not too impressed with how you use the term.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Of course not, because it's not Clinton who's outperforming them.

Your points make no sense, but you're one of the most partisan people here, so nothing Hillary does could make you see her in a negative light.

I'm hardly the most partisan person in this thread, much less this forum.

I've already said I'd vote for Sanders if he got the nomination - I'll vote the party ticket, which is more than a number of Sanders supporters would agree to.

I've said nothing disparaging about Sanders or his supporters, per se.

My beef is with the wackadoodle theories about how sanders will win the nomination and how their are cabals of Clinton supporters doing illegal things to undermine sanders. Also, those who discount opinion polls as having no basis in reality, mostly because Michigan.

 

[Maya22]

<snip> And here we are in 2012, <snip>

Wait, what?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I guess reading comprehension isn't something you're concerned with, I've already addressed this a number of previous comments. But feel free to keep beating that dead horse.

As noted, this was addressed in previous posts. And I think you're reading more into my comments than I actually said.

Nope, you never addressed it. Because if you did, you could just tell us which posts you addressed it in.

Instead, you hand-wave is away as "already addressed".

Totally dishonest.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I haven't had the time to truly dig into the claims in the article, so take it how you will.

<snip>

IF the article is accurate as written -- and that is still a very big IF -- it's fairly conclusive evidence that this primary election is bought and paid for. I do know that the backlash against the superdelegates among the far left is getting serious; and should Sanders end up winning the popular vote and a majority of pledged delegates, the superdelegates handing the nomination to Clinton would further alienate the progressive left (many of whom are already insisting that they'd rather endure a Trump presidency than vote for Clinton under those circumstances), and practically ensure a GOP victory in the general. It certainly makes it look like not only Clinton; but the entire DNC establishment is up for sale.

At the very least, it does show that Clinton is far more beholden to the 1% lobbyists than she is to the people. You don't give that much money to someone you don't believe has your interests at heart, and who is not expected to support you in return.


Cue Clinton supporters claiming "conspiracy theory" in 3... 2... 1...

Yeah, that's because of that hilited part.

con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry
noun
a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.

I beat you to an hour posting it, thinking the general primary thread was more appropriate, and it took a usual suspect 13 minutes to read the rather long article, "fact check", look up the author (an actress he apparently thinks I should have heard about), and claim "conspiracy theory".

I agree that this needs serious fact-checking, and if it stands up to scrutiny, serious exposure.

Nope, it didn't take very long to review an opinion piece from a Sanders activist and see that it was a bunch of nonsense. Why would it ???

I'll stand by my opinion that it's a wackadoodle conspiracy theory.

I'll be happy to apologize when it turns out the this article was " conclusive evidence that this primary election is bought and paid for" - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Please though, fact check it and be sure to get back to us all and let us know how it went ...

BTW - yes, I think Margot Kidder is famous enough you might have heard of her. Why is that odd ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Mandating GMO bans, phasing out or eliminating nuclear power generation, discovering his hidden inner Zionist, there are actually a huge number of things that Sanders could do to lose my support, I'm supporting the public policies he's promoting, he came close to losing me because while he supports and promotes a carbon tax, it is weak and not revenue neutral.

Not that I wouldn't still support and respect the public policy, merely that his personal negatives would outweigh the benefit of supporting him personally.

This is rather the type of thing that happened with my support for Hillary after 2008.

As pointed out by Wayward son & Brainster:

How Bernie Sander's position of not granting or renewing the licenses of nuclear power plants could be perceived as anything other then the phasing our or eliminating nuclear power generation is a mystery to me.

Bernie Sander's support of fear-based GMO labeling chaos will have the same effect as a ban.

The most interesting thing I have seen about Sanders lately was his 2003 co-sponsoring of a bill that would have not just jailed scientists for 10 years for human cloning, but also for conducting therapeutic cloning (SCNT) research.

I find the popularity within the Democratic party for a candidate as anti-science as some the worst Republicans I have mocked over the years to be a good reason to stop supporting the party.

I've got some bad news for you:

But there’s one major flaw in Bernie’s plan: Sanders is calling for a total phaseout of nuclear energy. He would place a moratorium on relicensing of the country’s aging nuclear power plants—from which we currently get about 20 percent of our electricity.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/

Create a Clean-Energy Workforce of 10 million good-paying jobs by creating a 100% clean energy system. Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Trakar, if you addressed this, apologies, I missed it ...

 

[d4m10n]

Sanders is anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-cloning? Damn.

 

[Fudbucker]

I'm hardly the most partisan person in this thread, much less this forum.

I've already said I'd vote for Sanders if he got the nomination - I'll vote the party ticket, which is more than a number of Sanders supporters would agree to.

I've said nothing disparaging about Sanders or his supporters, per se.

My beef is with the wackadoodle theories about how sanders will win the nomination and how their are cabals of Clinton supporters doing illegal things to undermine sanders. Also, those who discount opinion polls as having no basis in reality, mostly because Michigan.

Do you accept there are non-wackadoodle theories about how Sanders will win? It's not like he has to cheat or do anything underhanded. He just has to win by pretty good margins. It's possible Hillary (or Bill) commits a serious gaffe, and Sanders wins the remaining states by comfortable margins. Or some Black Swan event (e.g., FBI recommendation to charge Clinton) tilts things towards Bernie. Or Bernie simply overperforms in the remaining states.