Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[TheL8Elvis]

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?

Well, we probably should take a step back and ask ... is the purpose of a closed primary primarily to serve the public interest ?

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.

No, it doesn't. I don't know why NY has this rule, just that they have had it for a very long time. It was challenged in the 70s and upheld as constitutional.

I'm not sure I see why independents should be allowed, a few weeks before an election, to arbitrarily insert themselves into the process.

If this is the desired outcome, all those independents should be petitioning the state to have an open primary. That seems to be the best of all options.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Has Sanders said this himself?

 

[pgwenthold]

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. .

And the reason the superdelegates should switch is because the (current) polls show that Sanders would do better in the general. Because Sanders supporters are always telling us how reliable polls are.

 

[Belz...]

Well, we probably should take a step back and ask ... is the purpose of a closed primary primarily to serve the public interest ?

I would think that the purpose is for the party to choose its candidate based on expected electability.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Has Sanders said this himself?

Yes, he says "I think we can" and talks about the superdelegates changing sides often.

His latest anti-establishment rant is claiming 3 million registered independents were not allowed to vote and that's why he failed.

There's a serious problem with that. Only a small fraction of voters vote in the primaries. There were not 3 million people who would have voted for him in that group so's it's disingenuous to imply 3 million people who would have voted for him couldn't.

I think he's telling himself he really won NY if people could vote, but that's denial.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

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.

They're delusional.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does that serve the public interest well?

Irrelevant. It serves the interest of the Democratic party. Their party, their rules.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, he says "I think we can" and talks about the superdelegates changing sides often.

That's quite hypocritical considering the prior railing about these delegates.

His latest anti-establishment rant is claiming 3 million registered independents were not allowed to vote and that's why he failed.

He's becoming a standard politician, then.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, we probably should take a step back and ask ... is the purpose of a closed primary primarily to serve the public interest ?

I would think that the purpose is for the party to choose its candidate based on expected electability.

I would think the purpose is to keep the party relatively coherent and focused on specific issues. Outside voters may well have priorities which differ significantly from the party platform, party activists, and party establishment.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I would think the purpose is to keep the party relatively coherent and focused on specific issues. Outside voters may well have priorities which differ significantly from the party platform, party activists, and party establishment.

Indeed. and important to remember for this particular NY discussion, is that NY board of elections registration rule, not the democratic party.

To your point above:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-parties-in-new-york-than-in-any-other-state/

Activists have tried to loosen New York’s rules, but with few successes. The Voter Empowerment Act, the most recent attempt, is still stalled in committee in the state Senate. Blair Horner, the legislative director at New York Public Interest Research Group, a liberal nonprofit, says that Albany legislators write rules to make it easier to get re-elected. “New York’s elected officials like to know who the voters are who are showing up in an election,” he said — voters who are new to a party may vote too unpredictably for incumbents’ tastes. New York had one of the lowest turnout rates in the country in 2014, which could help incumbents who have to reach only a small pool of voters.

 

[varwoche]

Has Sanders said this himself?

Don't know. His campaign manager (Weaver) said it though.

KORNACKI: Let me ask you this, though. Is this a fair statement, the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, if you are not leading at least one of those counts when June 7th finishes up, when we finish this primary process, you don't have a claim to get those superdelegates to flip -- or are you still going to try to flip superdelegates if you're not winning one of those?

WEAVER: I don't think that that's the case. Look, we're going to go to the convention. It is extremely unlikely that either candidate will have the requisite number of pledged delegates to get to this number, right? So it's going to be an election determined by the superdelegates.

 

[theprestige]

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

You're reversing the burden of proof. It's his responsibility to support his claims, not mine to accept them without support.

 

[dudalb]

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.

Desperattion often leads to stupid actions. Trying to sway delegates when you really don't have any good reasons for them to switch is stupid.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/18/3770355/new-york-voting-open-primary-lawsuit/

You're reversing the burden of proof. It's his responsibility to support his claims, not mine to accept them without support.

Wait, are you willing to accept all the claims that the BoE changed peoples registrations against their will without support, though ?

Because that's what the original claim is all about, some mysterious conspiracy to disenfranchise voters.

 

[The_Animus]

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 Drumpf 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 Drumpf; 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.

There are numerous scenarios in which this system has issues. Bob has pointed out one such example, thanks Bob!

Others might be:

-Independents/dems/reps originally supporting one candidate. That candidate drops out after the deadline, and now their preferred candidate is with the other party.

-Independents/dems/reps register with a party, and after the deadline their preferred candidate becomes part of a scandal and now they want to vote for a candidate in the other party. Or if not something new that they say/do, something that comes up that the voter didn't know about previously or that didn't come to light until now.

-Many people don't like to follow politics religiously like many of us. They might have a lot going on in their life and they simply don't know about the deadline being 6 months prior to the actual primary.

 

[theprestige]

Wait, are you willing to accept all the claims that the BoE changed peoples registrations against their will without support, though ?

Because that's what the original claim is all about, some mysterious conspiracy to disenfranchise voters.

I accept neither at face value. I merely point out that the second is obviously a failure at refuting the first. That said, the New York political apparatus does not enjoy my trust and never has. This is a PR problem, not a logic problem. This is less about where the evidence leads, and more about your laughable idea that trotting out the unsupported claims of an apparatchik was in any way a reasonable reply to expressions of distrust.

If you have actual evidence, lead with that, not with a mouthpiece blaming it all on voters being stupid. Which appears to be a recurring theme with Clintonistas, actually. Skeptic Ginger has gone so far as to say Bernie's rise is due to progressives being duped by GOP rhetoric. You appeal to an authority who disclaims responsibility, in favor of blaming voters for being unable to use the voting system his organization has given them. Even if it were true, it would be profoundly dickish and dismissive. That this was your go-to retort speaks volumes for the way Clinton and her supporters see the world and their fellow Americans.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There are numerous scenarios in which this system has issues. Bob has pointed out one such example, thanks Bob!

Others might be:

-Independents/dems/reps originally supporting one candidate. That candidate drops out after the deadline, and now their preferred candidate is with the other party.

-Independents/dems/reps register with a party, and after the deadline their preferred candidate becomes part of a scandal and now they want to vote for a candidate in the other party. Or if not something new that they say/do, something that comes up that the voter didn't know about previously or that didn't come to light until now.

-Many people don't like to follow politics religiously like many of us. They might have a lot going on in their life and they simply don't know about the deadline being 6 months prior to the actual primary.

Sounds like the Bernbots should change the rules or form their own party. Or they can whine for the next 8 years. Whichever.

 

[catsmate]

Are you a pirate?

 

[catsmate]

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.

Exactly.

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.

Yeah.

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.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There are numerous scenarios in which this system has issues. Bob has pointed out one such example, thanks Bob!

No one claimed that any voting system was without issues.

And as already discussed, Bobs premise that this process was designed to best serve the public interest is wrong.

Others might be:

-Independents/dems/reps originally supporting one candidate. That candidate drops out after the deadline, and now their preferred candidate is with the other party.

-Independents/dems/reps register with a party, and after the deadline their preferred candidate becomes part of a scandal and now they want to vote for a candidate in the other party. Or if not something new that they say/do, something that comes up that the voter didn't know about previously or that didn't come to light until now.

-Many people don't like to follow politics religiously like many of us. They might have a lot going on in their life and they simply don't know about the deadline being 6 months prior to the actual primary.

So they aren't stupid or lazy, just ignorant ?

None of what you wrote demonstrates your claimed ridiculousness.

All I see here is sour grapes.