Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the way Bearnie looks is he going to make it to the starting line?

I don't know what 'starting line' you are referring to.

 

[sunmaster14]

Bernie could take 100% in the remaining caucus states, and if he doesn't do well in the big primary states, he'll still lose by 500.

Remaining Caucus States: Wyoming, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, North Dakota... Total 132 delegates if he takes 100%. He won't, but assume Alaska-like figures if you wish... 80% = 105 Sanders : 27 Hillary.
That's about the lunch-time allocation in New York. His requirement after today may have shifted slightly from needing 2/3 of the delegates remaining, but not by much. When the dust settles, the bottom line is that they need to flat out win, win, win. And WIN BIG in some states with a decent delegate count. So far, that's MI and WA. In fact, Bernie's got more delegates from the accumulated states he's lost in than he does in the winners.

Momentum? It will mean something going into WI. That's an important Dem state and he's been polling well. WY? Who cares? Truly... if I'm a Dem strategist and considering changing my support to Sanders, I don't give a rat's ass how much he swept Idaho and Montana and Oklahoma by. I care about that baker's dozen of states that the party needs to carry to retain the WH. He's won two of those (MI and WA); he's lost in FL, TX, VA, OH, IL, MA. "Yeah, but he was close!"

Close doesn't matter. Wins in red states don't matter. The Dems have about as much chance of taking Utah and Oklahoma as I have of winning Miss America. When the numbers are finalized at the end of today, Clinton's magic number is going to be around 650, I think. That's the number of delegates she needs to pick up of the remaining 2073, but we'll have to wait to see the final allocation of delegates from today. If it's 660 or 670, it's not much of a difference. It's a very small number.

Thread continued from here.

Please keep to the topic, thank you!

Posted By: zooterkin

Three things wrong with your analysis:

1. Momentum matters a lot, and not just because of psychology. The most recent primaries reflect the latest information about the candidates, information that previous primary voters might not have had.

2. Close does count. And huge blowouts matter a lot. Losing or winning by 1-2% is essentially a tie for the purpose of gauging voter preferences a few months from now, or in a general election.

3. Utah is up for grabs if Trump is the Republican nominee. I think Sanders would beat him, and Hillary would not. In Utah that is.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Interestingly my little Mad Max dystopia town has way more Sanders signs and bumper stickers everywhere than any other candidate and this is a town that hasn't voted Democrat since Truman.

The more Hillary tightens her grip, the more star systems will slip through her fingers!

 

[Manopolus]

A brief summary of the reasons we should supposedly dismiss Nate Silver, according to wisdom eminating from deep inside the Bernie bubble:

1. Silver is establishment, conservative light. (And if you cite Silver, you too are establishment, conservative light). Courtesy of Trakar.

2. Because Silver himself isn't a pollster, but rather he performs analysis based on polling results, that means he's a "hack", track record be damned. Courtesy of Manopolus.

I invite you both to reconsider this self-serving nonsense.

Well, he does quite clearly use polls with horribly bad methodology -- at least in the context of this primary. I checked.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Three things wrong with your analysis:

1. Momentum matters a lot, and not just because of psychology. The most recent primaries reflect the latest information about the candidates, information that previous primary voters might not have had.

I'm allowing for the big mo. It still amounts to a simple mathematical NEGATIVE target. Show the math where Bernie stops Hillary from taking 671 out of the remaining 2049. I grant that he'll do well (win) in WI. But he needs to, by that calculation, hold her to 33% or less ACROSS THE BOARD.

If he wins in WI, it's max. 60/40. If he comes close in NY, there will be cheering, but no way it's by 67%. Bernie needs to average 67% of the delegates remaining on the table. That doesn't mean he needs to average that in 22 states, but that you weight the states with higher delegate counts accordingly. A Hillary loss by 51/49 in the six highest delegate-count states remaining? Woo hoo! Bernie Wins! No. Hillary is over the 2383 needed.

2. Close does count. And huge blowouts matter a lot. Losing or winning by 1-2% is essentially a tie for the purpose of gauging voter preferences a few months from now, or in a general election.

Close counts MORE in larger states. Bernie still has his highest single state delegate count from one he lost soundly, so you could say "not-so-close" counts even more in larger states. But in these last 22 states "close does count" only applies to Hillary. If it's close in all 22 and Bernie wins by a half a percentage point in EVERY SINGLE ONE, Hillary is the nominee.

3. Utah is up for grabs if Trump is the Republican nominee. I think Sanders would beat him, and Hillary would not. In Utah that is.

You must have different records than the ones I have. Utah hasn't given the Dems more than 35% of the vote since back when there was little difference in the two parties ... '68. I tend to think less of their religious fervor than their red state fervor. Many may stay home, but a large enough majority will hold their noses and vote for whomever the GOP nominates.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sanders and his followers are so sure this time it's the real deal change in the wind. I don't see it. Apparently the Bay Area and Seattle account for Sander's biggest donors. One of our local hippie papers, The Weekly asked how that was when the folks doing a lot of the donating are ones that have benefitted from the current status quo. We are a Progressive bunch here on the Left Coast.

I'm happy to see the youth movement. It's so much more hopeful than the Trump/Cruz nightmare.

I don't think the tide changed just because Sanders had a run of states he does well in. Wisconsin will be interesting given Michigan and Ohio upsets (from the poll predictions that is). But I have no doubt Clinton will continue to do well in the NE including NY and NJ. CA might be a closer race but I don't see it going the same way as WA and even if it did, by that time it won't be enough to push Sanders ahead of Clinton.

In the long run, Sanders' success is a good thing IMO. And Clinton winning the nomination will, I think, be better than risking Sanders losing to Trump or Cruz as they portray Sanders as too radical and too tax happy.

It's harder to portray Clinton as more evil than Trump or Cruz.

 

[Maya22]

LOL.

Yeah, could you tone down the acrimony and the hyperbole a bit? After the DNC, you need to stand united behind the chosen candidate. You have that responsibility to the rest of the world. If the Democrats lose this presidential election, we end up with either a POTUS who thinks that pushing the button brings in the Second Coming of Christ, or one who thinks it'll be nice fireworks for the opening of his next resort.

So pretty please?

I can't speak for everyone, however, I am not a #bernieorbust person or a #jillbeforehil person. I am 100% committed to voting for the Democratic presidential nominee in November, whoever he or she will be.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I can't speak for everyone, however, I am not a #bernieorbust person or a #jillbeforehil person. I am 100% committed to voting for the Democratic presidential nominee in November, whoever he or she will be.

A number of us have that status. There are only a couple* of extreme Bernie supporters here who've stated that they would rather vote for Beelzebub than for Hillary. The partisan divide in the US is so strong that the majority in each party will gravitate to the designated candidate. (Absent a third party challenge, of course.)

*Pretty much like the bitter Hillary brigade who complained that they'd vote McCain/Palin in 2008. And I anticipate the same results, e.g. none.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You shouldn't believe anything the pre$$titutes write about Beelzebub...

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm allowing for the big mo. It still amounts to a simple mathematical NEGATIVE target. Show the math where Bernie stops Hillary from taking 671 out of the remaining 2049. I grant that he'll do well (win) in WI. But he needs to, by that calculation, hold her to 33% or less ACROSS THE BOARD.

You must be including superdelegates. By my calculations, he only needs 57% to 43% of the remaining popular vote to win the pledged delegates. If he gets that, the superdelegates will most likely switch to give him his victory. There is actually no doubt in my mind about that. Can he get 57%? Probably not. But it's not impossible. And campaigning has this positive feedback aspect to it. Some call it a preference cascade. The better Sanders does, the more attractive he starts looking to people who are undecided or weakly decided. Before the last run of states, I thought Bernie had no path to victory except via an FBI created deus ex machina (which is not out of the question at all). Now, however, I think Clinton may just blow up on her own. I'm not saying it's likely. I think it's still very unlikely. I'd put it at the 10%-15% level.

<snip>

You must have different records than the ones I have. Utah hasn't given the Dems more than 35% of the vote since back when there was little difference in the two parties ... '68. I tend to think less of their religious fervor than their red state fervor. Many may stay home, but a large enough majority will hold their noses and vote for whomever the GOP nominates.

Utahans are not typical red-staters. I think they recognize Trump for the immoral hedonist that he is. And Utah is fairly insulated from illegal immigration, so Trump's most successful talking point has little sway with them.

 

[Peter May]

I don't know what 'starting line' you are referring to.

Well even if he wins the nomination for presidential candidate, will he still
be around, (health wise) to take part?

 

[varwoche]

Well, he does quite clearly use polls with horribly bad methodology -- at least in the context of this primary. I checked.

You apparently overlooked my cite to Silver about his model:

polls are weighted based on their sample size and a pollster rating that accounts for the past accuracy of each polling firm as well as its methodological standards

 

[luchog]

Well even if he wins the nomination for presidential candidate, will he still
be around, (health wise) to take part?

Another one of the Clinton campaign's ridiculous talking points. There is no indication that Sanders is in poor health; and no reason for Clinton to even bring it up except for well-poisoning approaching birther levels of stupid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Another one of the Clinton campaign's ridiculous talking points. There is no indication that Sanders is in poor health; and no reason for Clinton to even bring it up except for well-poisoning approaching birther levels of stupid.

Clinton campaign talking point is Sanders' age???? Or his health????

Where do you get that from?

It's the same thing whenever the news media discusses people asking Sanders to give up. The only people asking that are news media people.

 

[wareyin]

Another one of the Clinton campaign's ridiculous talking points. There is no indication that Sanders is in poor health; and no reason for Clinton to even bring it up except for well-poisoning approaching birther levels of stupid.

Are you claiming that questioning the health and longevity of a man in his 70's running for one of the most stressful jobs in the world is as stupid as questioning whether Obama was born in the USA even after he released his birth certificate?

 

[timhau]

There is no indication that Sanders is in poor health; and no reason for Clinton to even bring it up except for well-poisoning approaching birther levels of stupid.

There's no indication he's in poor health, but he will be 75 before November, and should he get the nomination and win, he'd be the oldest first-term POTUS in history by a comfortable margin (and also the oldest person to be sworn into office).

Did you think concern about McCain's age was mega-stupid in 2008? He was only 72 on election day.

 

[luchog]

Did you think concern about McCain's age was mega-stupid in 2008? He was only 72 on election day.

Unless there is a good reason to expect the candidate to be in poor health, then yes, I do think it was stupid, and just another underhanded tactic.

Clinton campaign talking point is Sanders' age???? Or his health????

Where do you get that from?

David Brock, head of one of the superPACs that is part of the Clinton campaign. This was posted in the previous thread, and I believe you responded to it at that time. Is your memory that short?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unless there is a good reason to expect the candidate to be in poor health, then yes, I do think it was stupid, and just another underhanded tactic.

David Brock, head of one of the superPACs that is part of the Clinton campaign. This was posted in the previous thread, and I believe you responded to it at that time. Is your memory that short?

You mean back in January when there were allegations Clinton was unwell?

There is no indication that Sanders has health problems. But releasing medical records is a standard practice for serious presidential candidates. Clinton, now 68, released hers in July.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/16/david-brock-wants-bernie-sanders-medical-records/#ixzz44DqeZMXr

Is Brock renewing this call because Sanders said he would and didn't?
January 17, 2016, 09:43 am - Sanders promises to release medical records

Bring me up to date here as to why this came out now. I'm having trouble finding anything more recent than Feb on a Google search.

 

[deadrose]

Interestingly, Hillary's the one who's had neurological problems in the past few years, not (as far as I know) Bernie. Anyone remember this?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Interestingly, Hillary's the one who's had neurological problems in the past few years, not (as far as I know) Bernie. Anyone remember this?

Yes the GOP tried very hard to make it sound like she'd had a stroke with lingering damage which is why she released her medical report almost a year ago.