Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Doghouse Reilly]

You really don't know much about politics, do you?

Your sarcasm detector needs new batteries, I think.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager tried to argue delegate math on MSNBC. It didn’t go well.

Tad Devine, another Sanders' spokesperson, was on Rachel Maddow tonight talking about making up the 200+ deficit. He described how they had this great turnout at the county level in NV and picked up a whopping 3 delegates and that's where they are going to make it up.

Neither man sounded like they believed what they were saying.

Maddow asked if gaining delegates in numbers greater than originally earned wasn't the same thing Cruz was doing. Devine ignored the question and described the NV Clark County caucus saying enthusiastically, "We had a great turnout at the county caucus!" as if the initial caucuses didn't count.

 

[Travis]

If Sanders had a commanding lead, he might be able to persuade the super delegates to flip. But even then, it would still be a hard sell. What he needs is a few hundred suitcases filled with money; that would probably work.

What he needs is to get the majority of votes. If he does that the super delegates will flip. If he doesn't then they have no need to.

 

[catsmate]

This ad targets "Washington politicians", not Hillary Clinton. Sanders is too much of a wuss to go straight at Hillary. Trump will be happy to take the fight to her in the general.

Oh I do hope so. Hopefully his idiocy will cost the Republicans dearly in the other contests as well as losing the US presidency.

Aside from the ridiculous deadline of October
for registering/changing party affiliation in New York,

You mean more than four months after Sanders began his campaign? ARe his supporters stupid or lazy?

If not for this I think Sanders would win New York but as it stands he will lose.

Rubbish.

Sanders is already blaming the closed primary, <snip>

And what is the problem, exactly, with requiring someone to be a party member (and thus an actual supporter) to choose the party's candidate?

 

[catsmate]

His claim -- valid or otherwise -- is that as many as 3 million independents and Republicans might have voted for him if they could have, but would have had to change their registration to Democrat by last October 9.

Which (again) is four months after Sanders began his campaign.
And (also again) what's the problem with requiring someone is a party member before they're allowed to choose a candidate?

 

[catsmate]

Assuming there's any reason to take at face value the unsupported claims of the mouthpiece of the election board of an acknowledged Clinton stronghold, sure.

If there's anyone who has a vested interest in ensuring a fair contest for Sanders, and an honest appraisal to the voting public, it's the New York state board of Elections. If their spokesperson says a thing, then of course it must be true.

Have you any evidence to support your dismissal of the BoE's statement? Other than conspiratorial nonsense that is...

 

[catsmate]

Because they are going to treat Hillary so well. And when she gets in the Oval Office, as those Republicans in Congress will fall over themselves to negotiate with her.

You forget that the US presidency isn't the only election in November. Given Trump's deep unpopularity with pretty much everyone outside his own echo chamber the Republicans will loose seats.

 

[catsmate]

It's not over

Yes, it is.

[
"Jeff Weaver, Sanders' campaign manager, insisted his candidate will fight on following the Tuesday loss. He suggested the campaign would look to flip superdelegates from Clinton to Sanders ahead of the Democratic convention in July.

"Look, we're going to go to the convention," he said on MSNBC. "It is extremely unlikely that either candidate will have the requisite number of pledged delegates to get to this number. … It's going to be an election determined by the superdelegates."

http://www.businessinsider.com/sanders-supporters-disappointed-but-determined-after-new-york-2016-4

Good grief, the pathetic stench of desperate denial is strong there.

 

[The_Animus]

You mean more than four months after Sanders began his campaign? ARe his supporters stupid or lazy?

False dichotomy and ad hom all in one. Do you not understand the issue because you're stupid or lazy?

 

[catsmate]

False dichotomy and ad hom all in one. Do you not understand the issue because you're stupid or lazy?

I see you're one of those people who don't understand what "ad hominem" means. I recommend you do some research before further embarrassing yourself.

So why didn't Sanders' fans properly register as Democrats?

And what's wrong with allowing only party members vote for candidates?

 

[The_Animus]

I see you're one of those people who don't understand what "ad hominem" means. I recommend you do some research before further embarrassing yourself.

So why didn't Sanders' fans properly register as Democrats?

And what's wrong with allowing only party members vote for candidates?

Semantics. Rather than addressing the issue you'd rather just call people stupid or lazy. You know what the issue is but instead choose to be disingenuous and feign not understanding. I have no patience for that type of poster so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

Best of luck

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So why didn't Sanders' fans properly register as Democrats?

Because the fix was in. Hillary!!!11!11!!!!

And what's wrong with allowing only party members vote for candidates?

Are you proposing that parties should allow others to set their rules? Preposterous!!!

 

[catsmate]

Semantics.

Another term whose meaning seems to escape you.

Rather than addressing the issue you'd rather just call people stupid or lazy.

A lie.
You've failed to address my point and instead attempted to obfuscate matters by throwing around the names of fallacies you don't seem to understand/.

You know what the issue is but instead choose to be disingenuous and feign not understanding.

That's be the "issue" you've completely failed to address?

I have no patience for that type of poster so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

Ah, running away because you can't answer. Very mature.

 

[Belz...]

That's be the "issue"

Are you a pirate?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Semantics. Rather than addressing the issue you'd rather just call people stupid or lazy. You know what the issue is but instead choose to be disingenuous and feign not understanding. I have no patience for that type of poster so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

Best of luck

What, specifically, is the issue ?

A law that NY has had for a hundred years, that has been upheld by the supreme court ?

Is that the issue ? If not that, then what ?

 

[wareyin]

What, specifically, is the issue ?

A law that NY has had for a hundred years, that has been upheld by the supreme court ?

Is that the issue ? If not that, then what ?

The issue, obviously, is that Sanders is losing. Since Sanders is obviously awesome, and should be winning, we know that it must be someone else's fault that Sanders is not winning. In this instance, it is not Sanders' fault for failing to convince NY voters of his awesomeness, it is the fault of the NY Democratic Party for not bending the rules to allow people (who couldn't be bothered to follow the rules) to vote for Sanders the great and powerful.

/Sanders supporter

 

[pgwenthold]

So what's all this about "Sanders won more counties in NY" and stuff? He lost the vote 58-42. That's not close. So who cares that he won the least populated counties? Is that supposed to be a silver lining?

I believe the % of delegates was closer, but he still lost a lot of ground there. That's some serious straws to be grasping.

 

[varwoche]

The Sanders campaign is now openly promoting the concept that even if Clinton wins the most 'regular' delegates, and even if she gets the most popular votes -- both of which are more or less set in stone -- they will try to sway super delegates in order to tip the scales.

The degree of hypocrisy is something to behold.

I wish that the Sanders supporters here who have complained ad nauseum about Clinton relying on super delegates will now call out the Sanders campaign for this rank hypocrisy. Alas, I also wish for a pony.

 

[Bob001]

What, specifically, is the issue ?

A law that NY has had for a hundred years, that has been upheld by the supreme court ?

Is that the issue ? If not that, then what ?

I would say the issue is this. An election ultimately comes down to choosing one person over another. Last October, and really as recently as January, there were something like 17 candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. It entirely possible, even likely, that many registered Republicans fully planned to support Bush or Rubio or Rand Paul or somebody else. That's why they kept their registration. But when they realized that their only choice in the Republican primary was going to be Trump or Cruz, some might have decided that they would prefer to vote for one of the Democrats, as a protest if nothing else. But the current rules left them only these choices: vote for Trump; vote for Cruz; or stay home. Does that serve the public interest well?

New York allows new voters to register as late as about three weeks before the election. If that works, it doesn't seem wildly unreasonable that current voters should be able to change their registration by the same deadline.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would say the issue is this. An election ultimately comes down to choosing one person over another. Last October, and really as recently as January, there were something like 17 candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. It entirely possible, even likely, that many registered Republicans fully planned to support Bush or Rubio or Rand Paul or somebody else. That's why they kept their registration. But when they realized that their only choice in the Republican primary was going to be Trump or Cruz, some might have decided that they would prefer to vote for one of the Democrats, as a protest if nothing else. But the current rules left them only these choices: vote for Trump; vote for Cruz; or stay home. Does that serve the public interest well?

New York allows new voters to register as late as about three weeks before the election. If that works, it doesn't seem wildly unreasonable that current voters should be able to change their registration by the same deadline.

That might account for a few people. I think Sanders missed the boat to campaign earlier in the state.

But the bottom line here is, Sanders' whole premise is he's going to effect this voter revolution. More than a few already registered Democrats support him. And only a fraction of voters vote in the primary. All he had to do was get that voter revolution in motion and even with the registration restrictions he should have won by a landslide.

I think what Sanders supporters don't realize is that despite the fact Sanders has a following, and despite the fact he draws big crowds of young people, it's a relatively small percentage of the population. It feels bigger than it is, especially when one is caught up in it.