Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[wareyin]

You might want to look up Hawaii, and Alaska. Cuz they make you wrong!

You might want to look at the full sentence you snipped, count the numbers of delegates in those states, and get back to me.

 

[Dog Town]

You might want to look at the full sentence you snipped, count the numbers of delegates in those states, and get back to me.

Read it! Your "argument" is STILL wrong.

 

[wareyin]

Read it! Your "argument" is STILL wrong.

The entire population of the state of Alaska is smaller than the city I live in. 736,732 people is a small state.

The entire population of Hawaii is also smaller than the city I live in. 1.42 million people is a small state.

If you want to argue land-mass, yes, Alaska is large, but land mass doesn't determine delegates or votes. Also, using that metric Hawaii is still small.

Do you need any other basic facts explained to you?

 

[Dog Town]

Totally legal, and part of the process! Glad I was there!

In another sign of the fight left in Bernie Sanders’s campaign, the Democratic presidential hopeful appears to have picked up at least a couple of delegates in Nevada, a state where Hillary Clinton was declared the winner on Feb. 20.

Clinton emerged on caucus day with a lead of 20 to 15 in statewide delegates. According to a report from Nevada, that margin has narrowed to 18 to 17 after a second round in the process, known as the county conventions, which took place Saturday.

Sanders’s supporters flooded the largest of those, in Clark County, where Las Vegas is located. As a result of his organizational muscle and some complicated rules, the senator from Vermont managed to garner more support there than Clinton, despite her edge on Feb. 20.

 

[Dog Town]

The entire population of the state of Alaska is smaller than the city I live in. 736,732 people is a small state.

The entire population of Hawaii is also smaller than the city I live in. 1.42 million people is a small state.

If you want to argue land-mass, yes, Alaska is large, but land mass doesn't determine delegates or votes. Also, using that metric Hawaii is still small.

Do you need any other basic facts explained to you?

YOU need to look up diverse!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.
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 ...

How's that fact checking coming along ?

 

[Dog Town]

Do you need any other basic facts explained to you?

NO, but sadly you do! Your own words, it seems! Diverse!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
Except that he's not losing quite as much as it might seem. In fact, after I'm really surprised no one has posted this yet, it seems that Clinton did not win Nevada after all:

Bernie Sanders Wins the Nevada Caucus After All

Can't wait to hear the spin on this one.

Here it is: he may get 4 extra delegates. He is still losing. By a large margin.

 

[wareyin]

YOU need to look up diverse!

Yeah, way to argue the semantics while missing the point.

 

[Dog Town]

Yeah, way to argue the semantics while missing the point.

Yeah, way to say your "argument" was wrong! I already knew it.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, way to say your "argument" was wrong! I already knew it.

Is California small, like Hawaii and Alaska? No.

Is California a caucus state, like Hawaii and Alaska? No.

Does California have a below average black and Hispanic population, like Hawaii and Alaska? No.

Is it therefore accurate to say that because Sanders won small caucus states with few black or Hispanic voters* like Hawaii and Alaska by 25 or more points, that he is likely to do so in California? No.



*because golly, non-diverse is the wrong way to say that, if one is desperately losing the argument but has to find a semantic point to declare victory with.

 

[Dog Town]

Is California small, like Hawaii and Alaska? No.

Is California a caucus state, like Hawaii and Alaska? No.

Does California have a below average black and Hispanic population, like Hawaii and Alaska? No.

Is it therefore accurate to say that because Sanders won small caucus states with few black or Hispanic voters like Hawaii and Alaska by 25 or more points, that he is likely to do so in California? No.

So now, your word DIVERSE, only means black, and Hispanic?
Where did those goal posts fly to?

Buy a dictionary!

 

[Fudbucker]

The super delegates are part of the Democratic nomination process.

Never claimed they weren't.

Whether or not you think they are stupid, their votes count. We all know that Sanders isn't winning with pledged delegates, nor will he.

Nobody is claiming he's winning with pledged delegates. The claim is he MIGHT win a majority of pledged delegates. This claim is true.

Well, most of us understand that a lead of over 200 pledged delegates is almost impossible for Sanders to overcome.

Then better put some money down because the betting odds on Bernie winning the nomination are at 11%. An 11% chance is not "almost impossible"?

Some people apparently are pretty impressed with wins in tiny states with few delegates, and so think Sanders is doing much better than the actual numbers show.

Sanders has about 1,000 pledged delegates. The numbers show a hard, but doable path to a majority.

It doesn't matter, because I'm not delusional enough to think that Sanders is ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates.

OK, because no one is claiming he is.

Clinton also has over 2.5 million more votes than Sanders, so not only is she winning the pledged delegates, but she is winning the popular vote.

No one is claiming she isn't. The claim is she MIGHT NOT win the popular vote. If she doesn't and Bernie has a majority of pledged delegates, the super-delegates won't matter. A majority of the Democratic electorate is not going to sit idly by while the nominee with the most votes and pledged delegates loses in some backroom deal. The DNC is not that stupid. The superdelegates will support whoever wins the pledged delegates, unless they want to see if they can top the Chicago convention of 68.

No, despite your distaste for them, the super delegates count.

Sure, if there's a contested convention, and nobody has a majority of delegates like the GOP. In cases where there's a clear winner, they're irrelevant. They'll back whoever has the majority. Do you really think the DNC would allow superdelegates to nullify a majority of Democrats' votes? Never happen.

What an astoundingly unhelpful (or misleading) way of looking at the numbers. If we took away a candidates wins, they would no longer be winning. If we took away Sanders wins in states that will go blue and vote for Clinton anyway, he would have almost zero delegates.

No, if you took away states where Clinton has no hope of winning in the general, she loses to Bernie.

A good candidate can win not just the reliably blue states, but the swing states necessary to win a general election. Clinton won 5 out of 7 of those. Sanders could only win 2.

A good candidate would have won ALL swing states against Bernie. How is Clinton losing ANY of them? How does a good candidate lose a swing state like Colorado by 18 points against a nobody like Bernie? The answer is obvious: they don't. Hillary is a terrible candidate and pointing to states she won, which she should have won, only showcases that she lost states she shouldn't have lost.

You can only see that one poll, can't you? How sad.

You think there is only one poll that shows Hillary is untrustworthy and unlikeable? Really?

http://www.pollingreport.com/hrc.htm
Take your pick:
CBS, unfavorable by 21 points
CNN, unfavorable by 13 points
Quinnipiac, unfavorable by 21 points
The outliers here are Bloomberg (-9) and ABC (-6).

You can find similar (multiple) polling for how distrusted she is.

We have to get to a contested convention, first.

And the GOP seems headed there.

Yeah, she's top-notch. Who are the rest again? Trump, Cruz, and an old socialist? That's some competition there.

Ok, so every single candidate is terrible? What an unhelpful way of looking at things.

No, Bernie's actually a good candidate, but with the disadvantages he started with, he should have been crushed in Iowa, and (maybe) narrowly won N.H. Believe it or not, there's a percentage of Democrats that vote based on honesty and integrity and Bernie wins that vote almost 10 to 1. If Hillary weren't so sleazy, she'd be splitting that vote, instead of getting clobbered on it:

"Among the percentage who said honest and trustworthiness was the quality most important to them, Mrs. Clinton captured only 5 percent of the vote compared to Mr. Sanders‘ 91 percent."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/10/hillary-clinton-deemed-untrustworthy-exit-polls-sh/

How can you think Clinton is a good candidate after reading that? She wins 5% of the voters who value honesty. 5%??? Those numbers are so bad they seem made up, but that's a CNN exit poll.

What does Brian Williams have to do with the candidacy?

Because of what happened to him when people found out he was lying to make himself look better? Hmmm, what other well-known person also does that?

But please, do keep dredging up minutia as though it is important (gosh, how could I vote for someone who claims their parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary? That is such an integral part of being a good President!). You are doing a good job of showing who, exactly, is slavishly devoted to Clinton.

Uh huh. It's minutia when Clinton repeatedly lies about her life story. Sniper fire? Dead broke? Could it have something to do with winning 5% of voters who value honesty?

Again, the super delegates count, and again, Sanders doesn't have a majority of pledged delegates.

Nobody said he does, and no they don't count. They would if O'Malley was grabbing 15% of the vote and no one would have a majority, but this time around they're going to be as relevant as they were 2012 and 2008: completely irrelevant.

But don't believe me. Politifact and DNC chair back me up on this:

"The purpose of superdelegates -- which by the way, have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984 -- is to make sure that party activists who want to be delegates to the convention don’t have to run against much better-known and well-established people at the district level," said the South Florida congresswoman.

Have superdelegates not mattered since they were introduced in 1984? It’s clear that in elections after 1984 they were never needed to settle a nomination."
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...-wasserman-schultz-says-superdelegates-never/

Do you now concede that the superdelegates are irrelevant?

Sanders has to win NY by 16 points[/URL] to have a path to the nomination, and Clinton has maintained consistent double digit leads in polling.

No he doesn't: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

He has to win by 4 points.

Add in his necessary wins in PA and MD while his numbers there have never been good, and your "momentum" is sunk. It's worth remembering, also, that NY, PA, MD, and CA are all states that are not in the south, and all states that Clinton holds and has held convincing double digit leads in the polling.

Which is why he has a 10% chance of winning: the path is hard, but not impossible.

This claim is delusional. Sanders is not going to win CA period, much less by 25 or more points. He can only pull of 25 point or better wins in small, non diverse states with few delegates that are holding a caucus.

Washington is not small and Colorado is diverse. All it takes is a major gaffe from Clinton, and god knows she's made enough of them.

Ah, the pipe dream of the FBI indictment. Not very likely, my friend.

I never said "very likely". I don't know the odds. Neither do you. All we know is the FBI is investigating. FBI investigations, obviously, can lead to indictments. Will this one? Who knows. If the FBI recommends she be charged before California votes, Bernie can easily win California by 20+ points.

Obama "beat up" Clinton with a lead of 156 super and pledged delegates combined, yet Clinton's lead of over 200 pledged delegates alone, over 700 combined, means she is barely winning? Can you not see your discrepancy, here?

She is 10% closer to a majority of pledged delegates than Bernie. Barely might not be the right word, but in any contest, a 10% lead is not winning by much.

But the fact that it's April and we're talking about Clinton's LEAD, instead of her SECURING THE NOMINATION, is the real story.

 

[wareyin]

Nobody is claiming he's winning with pledged delegates. The claim is he MIGHT win a majority of pledged delegates. This claim is true.

Also, I MIGHT win in a basketball game one on one against Lebron James. In fact, the odds of both of these happenings are pretty close, IMO.

Then better put some money down because the betting odds on Bernie winning the nomination are at 11%. An 11% chance is not "almost impossible"?

You think an 11% chance is impressive? You keep claiming that Clinton is barely winning, but they're giving her an 89% chance. Your double standards here are not visible to you?

Sanders has about 1,000 pledged delegates. The numbers show a hard, but doable path to a majority.

Almost impossible, but doable, sure. You know, I think he'd do a lot better if he ran as Clinton.

OK, because no one is claiming he is.



No one is claiming she isn't. The claim is she MIGHT NOT win the popular vote. If she doesn't and Bernie has a majority of pledged delegates, the super-delegates won't matter. A majority of the Democratic electorate is not going to sit idly by while the nominee with the most votes and pledged delegates loses in some backroom deal. The DNC is not that stupid. The superdelegates will support whoever wins the pledged delegates, unless they want to see if they can top the Chicago convention of 68.

The possibility of your hypothetical is so remote that I don't see why you bother with it. She is currently winning, and she is polling ahead by double digits in almost every state that Sanders needs to win in.

Sure, if there's a contested convention, and nobody has a majority of delegates like the GOP. In cases where there's a clear winner, they're irrelevant. They'll back whoever has the majority. Do you really think the DNC would allow superdelegates to nullify a majority of Democrats' votes? Never happen.

Are you claiming that super delegates don't vote unless there is a contested convention? They will cast their votes at the same time the pledged delegates do.

No, if you took away states where Clinton has no hope of winning in the general, she loses to Bernie.

You think Clinton has no hope of winning Ohio, or Michigan, or Florida, or Virginia?

A good candidate would have won ALL swing states against Bernie. How is Clinton losing ANY of them? How does a good candidate lose a swing state like Colorado by 18 points against a nobody like Bernie? The answer is obvious: they don't. Hillary is a terrible candidate and pointing to states she won, which she should have won, only showcases that she lost states she shouldn't have lost.

I thought you said that Sanders is a good candidate. He could only win 2, yet he's a good candidate, while Clinton won 5 and that makes her terrible. Seriously, the double standards here have to be making your head spin.

You think there is only one poll that shows Hillary is untrustworthy and unlikeable? Really?

http://www.pollingreport.com/hrc.htm
Take your pick:
CBS, unfavorable by 21 points
CNN, unfavorable by 13 points
Quinnipiac, unfavorable by 21 points
The outliers here are Bloomberg (-9) and ABC (-6).

You can find similar (multiple) polling for how distrusted she is.

And the importance the Democratic voters place in this one metric is shown in the votes they have cast. Hint: Clinton is winning, and polls better than Sanders where it matters: the vote.

And the GOP seems headed there.

It is possible. In fact, it is far more likely than a Sanders win.

No, Bernie's actually a good candidate, but with the disadvantages he started with, he should have been crushed in Iowa, and (maybe) narrowly won N.H. Believe it or not, there's a percentage of Democrats that vote based on honesty and integrity and Bernie wins that vote almost 10 to 1. If Hillary weren't so sleazy, she'd be splitting that vote, instead of getting clobbered on it:

"Among the percentage who said honest and trustworthiness was the quality most important to them, Mrs. Clinton captured only 5 percent of the vote compared to Mr. Sanders‘ 91 percent."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/10/hillary-clinton-deemed-untrustworthy-exit-polls-sh/

How can you think Clinton is a good candidate after reading that? She wins 5% of the voters who value honesty. 5%??? Those numbers are so bad they seem made up, but that's a CNN exit poll.

And what percentage of the voters value honesty above all else in that poll? You are focused on a subset of a subset, while applying their values to the whole.

Because of what happened to him when people found out he was lying to make himself look better? Hmmm, what other well-known person also does that?

Is it your contention that the voting public is the same as the company NBC?

Uh huh. It's minutia when Clinton repeatedly lies about her life story. Sniper fire? Dead broke? Could it have something to do with winning 5% of voters who value honesty?

It is minutia. And you do realize that you harping on "voters who value honesty" is a little misleading, right? As it stands, you are claiming that 72% of Democratic voters don't value honesty at all. This is obviously not true.

Nobody said he does, and no they don't count. They would if O'Malley was grabbing 15% of the vote and no one would have a majority, but this time around they're going to be as relevant as they were 2012 and 2008: completely irrelevant.

But don't believe me. Politifact and DNC chair back me up on this:

"The purpose of superdelegates -- which by the way, have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984 -- is to make sure that party activists who want to be delegates to the convention don’t have to run against much better-known and well-established people at the district level," said the South Florida congresswoman.

Have superdelegates not mattered since they were introduced in 1984? It’s clear that in elections after 1984 they were never needed to settle a nomination."
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...-wasserman-schultz-says-superdelegates-never/

Do you now concede that the superdelegates are irrelevant?

Not being needed to settle the nomination is not at all the same as irrelevant. When was the last time Alaska's delegates were needed to settle a nomination? Does that mean they are irrelevant, or that they don't count? Of course not. Super delegates haven't been needed to settle a nomination because they tend to go with the popular vote, as they are now. So, just as we count Sanders' whopping 13 delegates from Alaska that won't be the determining factor, we count the 469 super delegates that endorse Clinton.

No he doesn't: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

He has to win by 4 points.

Yeah, I was wrong about that number, and had edited it even before you wrote this, but you are correct, he has to win by 4. That still means that polling down by 10-12 points makes NY look really bad for him.

Which is why he has a 10% chance of winning: the path is hard, but not impossible.





Washington is not small and Colorado is diverse. All it takes is a major gaffe from Clinton, and god knows she's made enough of them.

You can nitpick how each state only fits 2 out of the 3 categories I posted, but the fact is that California is large, diverse, and a primary, all conditions which have been bad for Sanders when applied in any 2 out of 3 combinations.

I never said "very likely". I don't know the odds. Neither do you. All we know is the FBI is investigating. FBI investigations, obviously, can lead to indictments. Will this one? Who knows. If the FBI recommends she be charged before California votes, Bernie can easily win California by 20+ points.

Still not likely.

She is 10% closer to a majority of pledged delegates than Bernie. Barely might not be the right word, but in any contest, a 10% lead is not winning by much.

But the fact that it's April and we're talking about Clinton's LEAD, instead of her SECURING THE NOMINATION, is the real story.

700 delegates is not 10%. Her pledged delegate lead is greater than what you claimed was a "beat up" when done by other candidates. The double standards are just not helping you, here.

 

[Trakar]

Streamin the bern!

 

[Travis]

Totally legal, and part of the process! Glad I was there!

Interesting you are proud of usurping the will of voters.

 

[Dog Town]

Diverse

FTFY!

 

[Dog Town]

Interesting you are proud of usurping the will of voters.

Obvious, you have not participated in a caucus! This was part of that process! Still the will! Ignorant...

 

[wareyin]

Interesting you are proud of usurping the will of voters.

Indeed. Not that those 4 delegates will matter, in the end, though.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Interesting you are proud of usurping the will of voters.

What's weird is, that's not the way the WA caucus is run. The chair should be announcing that X number of delegates are assigned candidate A and Y number of delegates are assigned candidate B and then you vote for which persons from those groups you want to send to the state convention. You don't revote the totals like you are holding the caucus all over again.

It looks like this is only the second POTUS caucus the Democrats have held in NV and 2012 Obama unopposed for the most part. I wonder if the Party in Clark County hasn't gotten the rules or process down yet?

I mean if you think about it, and you ran the caucus over again like it was a do over of the initial precinct caucuses, the winners could take more delegates than they had initially been assigned.

Someone screwed up.