Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

I think you are very confused. Did you read the article in question?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/18/3770355/new-york-voting-open-primary-lawsuit/

The group set up a website asking New York voters to submit information about their mysterious party affiliation switches, and received more than 300 responses. The plaintiffs named in the lawsuit were chosen from that group, and Election Justice USA has a group of people looking to determine why voters’ information may have been switched by the state.
“We have a team of professional data analysts and statisticians who are working on metadata analytics to see if there are any discernible patterns that may suggest causal connections — where could the problem have started?” she said. “It’s a little too soon to tell.”
The lawsuit also seeks to shift the burden of proof from the voters to the state.
They have a few hundred people with claims, and no evidence. Out of hundreds of thousands.

If you have actual evidence, lead with that,

Hitchens razor.

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.

Your rant is simply off base. You really need to go back and read the article.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Patton Oswalt Wants You To Know ‘You’re A *********** Child’ If You Don’t Vote Because You Hate Hillary
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...king-for-clapping_us_5717bf76e4b0479c59d6b7fe

In anticipation of the special, The Huffington Post caught up with the comedian to discuss his stand-up tips, the state of the Internet, and, of course, the 2016 Election. Oswalt has been a supporter of Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, but made it clear in the interview that he’s not “Bernie or bust.”

“I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate against either of those two psychopaths,” he said. “I think they’re both equally dangerous and backward-facing for this country.”

Asked what he would say to a Bernie supporter who would rather not vote than cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton in the November general election, Oswalt replied, “Well, then you’re a *********** child.”

 

[Trakar]

The Hillary supporters here have come very close to convincing me to vote for Trump as the lessor evil in November.

 

[DavidJames]

The Hillary supporters here have come very close to convincing me to vote for Trump as the lessor evil in November.

read the post above yours, he's talking about you.

 

[Fudbucker]

read the post above yours, he's talking about you.

There are very real reasons to not vote for Hillary: her coziness with Wall Street, her Iraq war vote, her being investigated by the FBI, her history of lying to make herself look better, the state of the Middle East...

Not voting for Hillary does not make one a "*********** child". People who care about integrity and honesty are going to have real problems voting for Hillary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So the Bullish on Bernie thread as become the Clinton vs Trump thread? I suppose it makes sense.

Trump: a bag of narcissistic hot air not even competent to run a campaign, but he does know how to manipulate the media into making him the star of a reality TV show. He doesn't have a clue how to run the country. He's a joke.

Clinton: A skilled legislator and politician her whole adult life, more experience directly applicable to being POTUS than any POTUS candidate ever. And what, people are afraid she's going to make a bad decision about the Middle East?

But no one is worried an idiot like Trump will?

The blind stupidity burns.

 

[Maya22]

So the Bullish on Bernie thread as become the Clinton vs Trump thread? I suppose it makes sense.

Trump: a bag of narcissistic hot air not even competent to run a campaign, but he does know how to manipulate the media into making him the star of a reality TV show. He doesn't have a clue how to run the country. He's a joke.

Clinton: A skilled legislator and politician her whole adult life, more experience directly applicable to being POTUS than any POTUS candidate ever. And what, people are afraid she's going to make a bad decision about the Middle East?

But no one is worried an idiot like Trump will?

The blind stupidity burns.

I think that are three or four billion people in the world, including me, who are worried about potential international disasters that Trump might cause if he is, Heaven forbid, elected.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sanders largely off-base in saying he wins when voter turnout is high and loses when it's low.

As the following chart shows, Sanders won the three highest-turnout contests, but also the 10 lowest-turnout contests. States won by Sanders are marked in bold....
Putting these low-turnout caucuses into the calculation quickly weakens the link between high-turnout contests and Sanders victories: The average turnout rate for a state won by Clinton was 44 percent, while the average state won by Sanders had a turnout rate of 31 percent...

Two of those high percentage states are New Hampshire and Vermont. The third is Oklahoma. The lowest turnouts are all in the caucus states of which Clinton won two (with higher turnouts, by the way).

There's another way to define a high-turnout primary or caucus -- to see how much turnout grew in 2016 compared with the last contested Democratic primary year, 2008.
To do this, we compared the number of Democratic ballots cast in 2008 to the number cast in 2016, once again using U.S. Elections Project data.

The one outlier is Michigan where the turnout was twice that in 2008. Six other states had higher turnouts than in 2008 and Sanders won all those.

But twenty-six states had lower turnouts than in 2008 discounting the claim Sanders has been making that he's bringing all these new voters to the polls.

He is bringing in a lot of new young voters, yes, but it is in a limited demographic and not the voter revolution Sanders needs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sanders spokespersons' common talking point the last couple days trying to mirror the GOP nonsense: Somehow if Clinton is ahead but doesn't have the necessary 2383 pledged delegates he is somehow just as legit a candidate as she is at the convention because the superdelegates who have endorsed a candidate should not count toward that 2383.

Clinton would need 63% of the remaining pledged delegates and Sanders would need 79% of the remaining pledged delegates.

The one flaw in Sanders thinking: there is no stop Clinton movement within the DNC. He's in lala land.

Sorry Sanders, you can't wish Clinton's lead away by distracting people with the superdelegates.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sanders largely off-base in saying he wins when voter turnout is high and loses when it's low.

Two of those high percentage states are New Hampshire and Vermont. The third is Oklahoma. The lowest turnouts are all in the caucus states of which Clinton won two (with higher turnouts, by the way).


The one outlier is Michigan where the turnout was twice that in 2008. Six other states had higher turnouts than in 2008 and Sanders won all those.

But twenty-six states had lower turnouts than in 2008 discounting the claim Sanders has been making that he's bringing all these new voters to the polls.

He is bringing in a lot of new young voters, yes, but it is in a limited demographic and not the voter revolution Sanders needs.

So the bullish on Bernie thread has become the shillary dump on Bernie thread?

 

[Trakar]

read the post above yours, he's talking about you.

Look who's taking a comedian seriously.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sanders spokespersons' common talking point the last couple days trying to mirror the GOP nonsense: Somehow if Clinton is ahead but doesn't have the necessary 2383 pledged delegates he is somehow just as legit a candidate as she is at the convention because the superdelegates who have endorsed a candidate should not count toward that 2383.

Clinton would need 63% of the remaining pledged delegates and Sanders would need 79% of the remaining pledged delegates.

The one flaw in Sanders thinking: there is no stop Clinton movement within the DNC. He's in lala land.

Sorry Sanders, you can't wish Clinton's lead away by distracting people with the superdelegates.

I guess in his view a Candidate thus needs to win 58.8% of the pledged Delegates to win.

ETA: Since Obama only managed to win 51% of the Pledged Delegates, he shouldn't have won.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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

When I was in the US, I registered as a Democrat in spite of being a cantankerous more-socialist-than-Bernie lefty. Why? Because the radicals were no longer running on the Liberal ticket and if you wanted to get your trojan horses elected it congressional districts or to local positions, you needed to get them into the primaries, first. Everyone I knew at the time knew of the situation.

So they're either ignorant or Ronulan-like, thinking that the "voice of the people will be heard; they can't keep us out".

So, yeah, I know what the issue is.... The Bernie group didn't do their homework.

I hate the law, by the way. I don't have a logical problem with closed primaries; I have a problem with their ridiculous grandfather clause that you have to have registered six months prior. What if you have the world's two most charismatic candidates running for the Dems and GOP? You have to have foretold their coming back at the end of October. What if you voted Dem in the last election and have decided that they're all a bunch of corrupt maroons and you want to throw them out? That, too, you will have had to have foretold six months earlier.

 

[tyr_13]

The Hillary supporters here have come very close to convincing me to vote for Trump as the lessor evil in November.

There are very real reasons to not vote for Hillary: her coziness with Wall Street, her Iraq war vote, her being investigated by the FBI, her history of lying to make herself look better, the state of the Middle East...

Not voting for Hillary does not make one a "*********** child". People who care about integrity and honesty are going to have real problems voting for Hillary.

Um, yeah, if they won't vote for Hillary but will vote for Trump, those cannot be what they care about.

Voting for Trump over Hillary because you care about 'integrity and honesty' is either momentously stupid or delusional.

Frankly a lot of the Bernie supporters have made me a lot less passionate about advocating for him. 'Children' is a fair assessment of anyone who, failing to get exactly what they want, throw a tantrum and act against their own best interests.

 

[Fudbucker]

Um, yeah, if they won't vote for Hillary but will vote for Trump, those cannot be what they care about.

Voting for Trump over Hillary because you care about 'integrity and honesty' is either momentously stupid or delusional.

Frankly a lot of the Bernie supporters have made me a lot less passionate about advocating for him. 'Children' is a fair assessment of anyone who, failing to get exactly what they want, throw a tantrum and act against their own best interests.

You know there's a third option, right? Not voting for Trump OR Hillary?

 

[tyr_13]

You know there's a third option, right? Not voting for Trump OR Hillary?

You know I directly quoted someone who said they were almost ready to vote for Trump, correct?

 

[Maya22]

I hate the law, by the way. I don't have a logical problem with closed primaries; I have a problem with their ridiculous grandfather clause that you have to have registered six months prior. What if you have the world's two most charismatic candidates running for the Dems and GOP? You have to have foretold their coming back at the end of October. What if you voted Dem in the last election and have decided that they're all a bunch of corrupt maroons and you want to throw them out? That, too, you will have had to have foretold six months earlier.

I agree that the six month deadline in New York State is ridiculous. I was thinking about this the other day. Imagine a Rand Paul supporter in NY who only likes Rand Paul, and not any of the other numerous Republican candidates who were running. Rand Paul dropped out in February, too late for the hypothetical NY voter to re-register with a different party to vote for someone else in the NY primary.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Um, yeah, if they won't vote for Hillary but will vote for Trump, those cannot be what they care about.

Voting for Trump over Hillary because you care about 'integrity and honesty' is either momentously stupid or delusional.

Frankly a lot of the Bernie supporters have made me a lot less passionate about advocating for him. 'Children' is a fair assessment of anyone who, failing to get exactly what they want, throw a tantrum and act against their own best interests.

Oh, THIS again.

Speaking of "childish", I find it childish when people refuse to support a candidate because they don't like that candidate's supporters. You're willing to vote against your own best interests because you don't like a candidate's fan club.

 

[Maya22]

Oh, THIS again.

Speaking of "childish", I find it childish when people refuse to support a candidate because they don't like that candidate's supporters. You're willing to vote against your own best interests because you don't like a candidate's fan club.

Makes sense to me. All of the candidates have their share of immature supporters.

 

[tyr_13]

Oh, THIS again.

Speaking of "childish", I find it childish when people refuse to support a candidate because they don't like that candidate's supporters. You're willing to vote against your own best interests because you don't like a candidate's fan club.

If you find someone like that, I agree that it is childish. If you read what I wrote, you'll know that's not the case with me.

I voted for Bernie in the NY primary, although I had to file an affidavit vote to do it as I had moved townships from the last election. This 'if you don't Hate Hillary enough to not vote or vote for someone else in the general election, you're not really a Bernie supporter' line of reasoning needs to stop. It's come up far too often in far too many venues.