Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Manopolus]

Perhaps if you took of the Bernie Blinders, you might be better able to accurately assess what is and isn't possible.

Umm... it is empirically possible that Sanders will win the nomination. That is a FACT. However unlikely you deem that result to be, no matter how much you might dislike the idea, it is still within the range of possibilities. All we need to prove it is to count the delegates currently assigned vs those not yet assigned. Those are the only numbers that matter here. Even New York won't change that... it will take more than that to get to the point where it is impossible.

What we DO know is that Clinton's best area (The Deep South) has already voted, and she can't likely count on any future wins of that magnitude.

Also, it is entirely possible that Clinton will say or do something so incredibly stupid that even the press turns against her. Such things have been known to happen. Her strongest point has always been that most of the mainstream press slants in her direction. That can change in an instant if she does something controversial enough to make a sensationalist story out of it.

 

[Trakar]

Homies Turn Out! - Go 'Hawks!

Seattle's progressives see a Sanders win in Washington as a way to send a message to Democrats
- http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-bernie-sanders-washington-20160325-story.html

When Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign started hiring staff here in February, operatives found they had more of a head start than they expected.

Sanders activists, working on their own dime, had been training supporters and running phone banks for months, and they provided the candidate's team with lists of volunteers and offices spaces.

Instead of a loose collection of the Vermont senator’s fans, “it was already a statewide infrastructure,” said Dulce Saenz, the campaign’s Washington director.

As Washington prepares for its Democratic caucuses on Saturday, Seattle’s activists are seizing an opportunity to send a message to a national party they believe has grown too cozy with corporate interests and too dismissive of progressive concerns. In Sanders, they’ve found a candidate as uncompromisingly liberal as they want Democrats everywhere to be...

 

[wareyin]

Umm... it is empirically possible that Sanders will win the nomination. That is a FACT. However unlikely you deem that result to be, no matter how much you might dislike the idea, it is still within the range of possibilities. All we need to prove it is to count the delegates currently assigned vs those not yet assigned. Those are the only numbers that matter here. Even New York won't change that... it will take more than that to get to the point where it is impossible.

What we DO know is that Clinton's best area (The South) has already voted, and she can't likely count on any future wins of that magnitude.

And the delegates currently assigned gives Clinton a 303 pledged delegate lead, meaning Sanders must win 58% of the remaining delegates. But wait, there are super delegates, and their votes do count, no matter how much you wish they didn't. This gives Clinton a lead of 744 delegates, meaning Sanders must win 68% of the remaining delegates. Currently, and consistently, Sanders is polling well below Clinton, so that 68%, while technically possible, is so unlikely that it might as well be impossible. No matter how much you dislike that.

And mathematically, Clinton doesn't need wins of her previous magnitude to prevail. She is so far ahead that even ties will put her ahead, not that wins in NY, PA, and MD will hurt.

Eta: Clinton is so far ahead that even losing every remaining primary by 55-45% will still leave her with enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination.

 

[Trakar]

Homies Turn Out! - Go 'Hawks!

Seattle's progressives see a Sanders win in Washington as a way to send a message to Democrats
- http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-bernie-sanders-washington-20160325-story.html

When Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign started hiring staff here in February, operatives found they had more of a head start than they expected.

Sanders activists, working on their own dime, had been training supporters and running phone banks for months, and they provided the candidate's team with lists of volunteers and offices spaces.

Instead of a loose collection of the Vermont senator’s fans, “it was already a statewide infrastructure,” said Dulce Saenz, the campaign’s Washington director.

As Washington prepares for its Democratic caucuses on Saturday, Seattle’s activists are seizing an opportunity to send a message to a national party they believe has grown too cozy with corporate interests and too dismissive of progressive concerns. In Sanders, they’ve found a candidate as uncompromisingly liberal as they want Democrats everywhere to be...

This is a Democratic Primary, why aren't the state delegate selections done in order of Democratic priority? Perhaps we should be looking at the states that have the largest populations of, and most progressive, voters first..., but, reforming the primaries and national elections is probably a topic entirely deserving of its own thread.

 

[Manopolus]

And the delegates currently assigned gives Clinton a 303 pledged delegate lead, meaning Sanders must win 58% of the remaining delegates. But wait, there are super delegates, and their votes do count, no matter how much you wish they didn't. This gives Clinton a lead of 744 delegates, meaning Sanders must win 68% of the remaining delegates. Currently, and consistently, Sanders is polling well below Clinton, so that 68%, while technically possible, is so unlikely that it might as well be impossible. No matter how much you dislike that.

And mathematically, Clinton doesn't need wins of her previous magnitude to prevail. She is so far ahead that even ties will put her ahead, not that wins in NY, PA, and MD will hurt.

Okay, yes. It's entirely possible that the superdelegates will rip apart The Democratic Party by voting against the population. I'll give you that. However, I don't think that this would be a good thing. A candidate that won the nomination that way would probably lose even to Donald Trump.

As such, there's no point in counting them until the convention. The superdelegates themselves know the stakes in this sort of thing, as they have shown in the past (well, except for the Hubert Humphrey incident, which should tell them to be a bit more careful in the future).

 

[theprestige]

I figure that Sanders will fight on to the convention, but I just don't see how it's possible for him to get the nomination. He's going to get destroyed in New York (current polls there show him down ~30 points to Clinton), so any gains he makes in the upcoming string of caucus states are going to be erased, indeed more than erased, when NY votes. If Hillary doesn't have the magic number of delegates by then, she will surely be close enough that California will put her over the top.

Here's one Californian who'll be voting in the Democratic primary... For Sanders.

 

[wareyin]

Okay, yes. It's entirely possible that the superdelegates will rip apart The Democratic Party by voting against the population. I'll give you that. However, I don't think that this would be a good thing. A candidate that won the nomination that way would probably lose even to Donald Trump.

As such, there's no point in counting them until the convention.

Clinton has more than 2.5 million votes more than Sanders. This means that the supers voting for Clinton are voting with the population. Why do you continue to claim otherwise?

 

[Manopolus]

Here's one Californian who'll be voting in the Democratic primary... For Sanders.

I don't think you'll be alone. The way that The Republican Party is being torn apart by Trump and Cruz lately, there will likely be some that decide to vote for "anybody but Clinton" in the Democratic primary, rather than bothering to vote in the Republican primary at some point. The antics lately don't recommend either of the top Republican candidates. It may seem weird, but I think Republicans hate Clinton worse than socialism.

 

[Joey McGee]

...except for those intelligent enough to realize that the velocity of money is increased by redistribution and minimum wages, thus increasing sales potential. That would tend to help those industries that rely on mass consumption.

You should read the fine print on the graphic. This is how much he will increase spending, and we can all cross our fingers and hope that the pipe dreams come and this massive investment will payoff... Just some food for thought. I guess everyone sharing that graphic on the internet is an idiot though...

 

[Trakar]

...But wait, there are super delegates, and their votes do count, no matter how much you wish they didn't. This gives Clinton a lead of 744 delegates, meaning Sanders must win 68% of the remaining delegates. Currently, and consistently, Sanders is polling well below Clinton,,...

Where is Sanders polling well below Clinton currently and consistently? In states that haven't yet had their Democratic primaries? Got links?

Of course this assumes that no Super delegates migrate if they sense a shifting tide, that 68% could shift quickly in either direction.

 

[varwoche]

The polls that Nate Silver uses aren't even his polls, and he doesn't even vet them for methodology. He's nothing but a hack using other people's work. Furthermore, he doesn't even make a guess on margins. All he ever predicts is who he thinks is going to win a given state.

This isn't true, at least according to Silver.

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

As for him being "a hack using other people's work" ... I don't know enough to say if Silver's models kick ass or if he's just on a lucky streak. However generically, to dismiss Silver because he's not a pollster is bizarrely dismissive of his methodology. Like, you entirely don't get it.
<< the rare trifecta

 

[Manopolus]

Where is Sanders polling well below Clinton currently and consistently? In states that haven't yet had their Democratic primaries? Got links?

Of course this assumes that no Super delegates migrate if they sense a shifting tide, that 68% could shift quickly in either direction.

Yeah, it does make sense to point out that the national polls include areas that have already voted, and thus don't mean a whole hell of a lot with regard to places that have yet to vote specifically.

 

[wareyin]

Where is Sanders polling well below Clinton currently and consistently? In states that haven't yet had their Democratic primaries? Got links?

Of course this assumes that no Super delegates migrate if they sense a shifting tide, that 68% could shift quickly in either direction.

New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and California for some. Look at realclearpolitics or fivethirtyeight for polling. Links are a little difficult on my phone.

 

[Trakar]

Yeah, it does make sense to point out that the national polls include areas that have already voted, and thus don't mean a whole hell of a lot with regard to places that have yet to vote specifically.

Especially as not all national polls are showing Sanders as currently and consistently polling well below Clinton.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...er-clinton-sanders-in-bloomberg-poll-im63yb0w

 

[timhau]

Where is Sanders polling well below Clinton currently and consistently? In states that haven't yet had their Democratic primaries? Got links?

Pennsylvania? Maryland?

 

[Manopolus]

Pennsylvania? Maryland?

I noticed both of those give Sanders a better chance than our hero, Nate Silver, gave him in Michigan, where it was 1%.

 

[timhau]

I noticed both of those give Sanders a better chance than our hero, Nate Silver, gave him in Michigan, where it was 1%.

Yes, and because the unlikely happened once, from now on, it will always happen.

 

[Joey McGee]

Yes, all the hero worshipping going on here is over Nate Silver.... whoo boy

 

[wareyin]

I noticed both of those give Sanders a better chance than our hero, Nate Silver, gave him in Michigan, where it was 1%.

Did you also notice that they are in the North, that they haven't voted yet, and that they have various polls going for 6 months or more that have all favored Clinton by double digits? You should also see New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

 

[Trakar]

New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and California for some. Look at realclearpolitics or fivethirtyeight for polling. Links are a little difficult on my phone.

They look kinda like the polls of Oklahoma, Michigan, Kansas and Colorado to me, guess we'll have to wait a couple of weeks/months and see how the only polls that matter go. California is the king maker in this election, last poll there has Hillary 48, Bernie 41, with a MoE +/-6.2. That is neither well below, nor reflective of the sentiment of California progressives, many of who will be out of classes and ready to fully participate in California's June 7th primary.

BTW I don't generally allow conservative websites (like realclearpolitics) to decide which polls are relevant and which ones aren't to my considerations. Nor do I see anything particularly note worthy of Silvers' analyses, even a broken clock is right twice a day, if you only focus on the times it is right that's hundreds of correct correlations/approximations each year.