Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[wareyin]

Well, you could be pedantic, or you could, as an alternative, accept that I was talking about situations that are at least remotely similar to the one I was addressing.

Are you claiming that there is that much difference between a Democratic and Republican Candidacy? Or is this just a handwave to try to distract from the obvious flaw in your claim?

eta: to respond to your edit: The meaningful difference is that candidates do not only drop out when they run out of money, so your claim was wrong.

 

[Manopolus]

Are you claiming that there is that much difference between a Democratic and Republican Candidacy? Or is this just a handwave to try to distract from the obvious flaw in your claim?

I think I have made it abundantly clear that the party has nothing whatsoever to do with what made the difference between the two meaningful. Quit strawmanning. Yes, there is a point of abject failure at which my truism is not, in fact, true. Rubio fit into that category quite nicely. Technically, Kasich would fit into that category as well if it weren't for the oddities of this campaign.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just as an aside, apparently it's not just black voters who are being disenfranchised.

Illinois College Students Say They Were Threatened With Arrest And Turned Away From The Polls.

I bet they were all Bernie supporters. That's part of the conspiracy!

 

[wareyin]

I think I have made it abundantly clear that the party has nothing whatsoever to do with what made the difference between the two meaningful. Quit strawmanning. Yes, there is a point of abject failure at which my truism is not, in fact, true. Rubio fit into that category quite nicely.

You are the one who brought party into it, so forgive me for thinking that party was what you found meaningful. Now that it's abject failure, Sanders is not quite there yet.

 

[Manopolus]

You are the one who brought party into it, so forgive me for thinking that party was what you found meaningful. Now that it's abject failure, Sanders is not quite there yet.

No, I did not bring party into it. You did. Why are you trolling me bro? You could at least be honest.

Yes, I said that the Republican side was an entirely different situation -- but in no way did I say that this was because they are Republicans. One thing you will notice is that nobody is saying that Cruz should drop out and give Trump the nomination, interestingly enough, despite the fact that he's trailing Trump by nearly as much. I'm pretty neutral on that one, personally. Either one would be a disaster.

Traditionally though (doesn't apply well to this election), the last few candidates to quit will do so because they fall behind the lead candidate in fundraising. This cycle is different for a lot of reasons. It's not even about the money on hand per se. It's about how much they are currently raising, and how many are attending their events.

 

[Joey McGee]

Don't troll me bro! So 2007....

 

[luchog]

One thing you will notice is that nobody is saying that Cruz should drop out and give Trump the nomination, interestingly enough, despite the fact that he's trailing Trump by nearly as much.

Trump is.

 

[Joey McGee]

edit: The internet is infiltrated by Goldman Sachs

 

[Manopolus]

Trump is.

I'm sure that if you asked Trump, everybody should drop out and elect him dictator immediately. I'm not hearing it from the press or from relatively disinterested portions of the party though, like I am regarding the other nomination process.

 

[d4m10n]

How far behind does Sanders have to get (in terms of percentage outstanding delegates needed to win) before it would be appropriate to talk about him dropping out?

 

[Manopolus]

How far behind does Sanders have to get (in terms of percentage outstanding delegates needed to win) before it would be appropriate to talk about him dropping out?

It would never be appropriate, considering that he has already stated that he has no intention of stopping prior to the convention. There are reasons to do so even if he does lose. Why is that so hard to accept? He is quite simply not a quitter, and the campaign still has meaning even after it's impossible to win (which it isn't yet anyway).

Why would there ever be a time when it is appropriate to tell someone to give up that has no intention of ever doing so? He's made it quite clear that it's not going to happen, and his supporters seem to agree (I know I do).

There's not even any advantage Hillary could gain in the general if he did quit. It's just a demoralization strategy brought to you by Hillary supporters. Those statements are not targeted at anything to do with winning the general election. They're targeted at winning the nomination. Hillary doesn't actually benefit from Bernie dropping out if we assume that she wins in both cases. It's just a campaign tactic.

As a matter of fact, it's pretty reasonable to suggest that Obama's landslide in his first election was partially due to the nomination campaign going all the way to the convention, exciting turnout in the general. We don't have that kind of turnout this year (well, actually we do in the states that Bernie has won), but it can still build on what there is from here. As long as the result is in question, we've got new people registering to vote along the way that might have waited too long otherwise.

 

[Tony Stark]

Republicans want Cruz to stay in because he is their only hope for saving the GOP from Trump. They don't believe he can win the nomination outright though, they just hope that he can keep Trump from doing that so that they can have a brokered convention.

On the other hand, someone absolutely will win the Democratic primary outright. And math dictates that will be Hillary.

 

[Manopolus]

On the other hand, someone absolutely will win the Democratic primary outright. And math dictates that will be Hillary.

Nonsense. Math dictates that she has not won enough delegates yet. That's about all that math suggests. Yes, she's ahead. However, it is still empirically possible that it can go the other way. Just stop the BS, will you? Yes, I know you want Hillary to win and that she's ahead. That doesn't make it impossible for any other result to come about.

It's completely possible, and that can be empirically proven by just counting the delegates. Is it likely? Well, I don't need to lecture you on that one. Pretending that we already have the results is just stupid though. We don't. Hell, Hillary could just keel over and die of a heart attack tomorrow for all we know. I'm not wishing it on her, but even that is within the realm of the possible.

 

[Tony Stark]

Nonsense. Math dictates that she has not won enough delegates yet. That's about all that math suggests. Yes, she's ahead. However, it is still empirically possible that it can go the other way. Just stop the BS, will you? Yes, I know you want Hillary to win and that she's ahead. That doesn't make it impossible for any other result to come about.

I voted for Bernie. But I'm not in denial of reality. He has a near zero chance at winning the nomination unless something happens to Hillary and that is simply how it is no matter how much you don't like it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How far behind does Sanders have to get (in terms of percentage outstanding delegates needed to win) before it would be appropriate to talk about him dropping out?

Percentage points are irrelevant. It's dollars. As long as the rubes...errr...I mean the "supporters" keep sending them, he'll stay in.

 

[Manopolus]

Percentage points are irrelevant. It's dollars. As long as the rubes...errr...I mean the "supporters" keep sending them, he'll stay in.

Who's to say that some won't still support him even after he has technically lost? It's about the message, not the candidate. The win/loss aspect is actually somewhat irrelevant to some. That's the whole point of crowd sourcing as opposed to pay-for-access to the perceived winner. People don't give up just because they're losing when the nature of the game itself is at stake. The campaign finance strategy itself needs to be tested as thoroughly as possible, and some people are willing to donate for the sake of that alone.

Admittedly, he's already proven it works. Now let's see how badly people want it -- in the whole country, not just parts.

 

[Belz...]

Perfect! Exactly as I am saying. It is all poison, we don't have to look at why it is necessary or what they are doing... They are biased! Therefore everything they say is ********.

Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case.

You've not made a case, here. Just stated that your point is made. That's not very convincing.

Do you agree that not going through the voting process and instead lobbying the government with money and influence is inherently anti-democratic?

 

[Manopolus]

I voted for Bernie. But I'm not in denial of reality. He has a near zero chance at winning the nomination unless something happens to Hillary and that is simply how it is no matter how much you don't like it.

Reality does not include an ability to psychically predict the future. Sorry. The way things stand now, Hillary has a 58% chance of winning and Bernie has a 42% chance. Those are reflective of the only numbers that matter.

 

[d4m10n]

Why would there ever be a time when it is appropriate to tell someone to give up that has no intention of ever doing so? He's made it quite clear that it's not going to happen, and his supporters seem to agree (I know I do).

Because the day will come when the best strategy for fulfilling the maximum number of his stated goals is to line up behind his opponent.

For an example of what that looks like in practice: https://youtu.be/MeFMZ7fpGHY

 

[Tony Stark]

Reality does not include an ability to psychically predict the future. Sorry.

You don't need supernatural powers to understand the fact that Bernie is so behind that he stands almost zero shot of winning. You just need to not be deluded.

It is over.