Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Skeptic Ginger]

How many times has it been claimed in this thread? I'll wait.
In the meantime, if you want to debate those claims, maybe you should go talk to the people actually making them.

Did I? Where did I say that? Quote and link please.

Why is this discussion only confined to your comments?

You said this and linked to a news article:

For those who are still whining about "OMGConspiracyTheory!"

Even the Arizona state government recognizes that there was something very wrong here: http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-primary-voter-suppression/.

And we are supposed to know this one time you are not talking about a CT to defraud Sanders supporters?

Which is why I said:

Yes but that's the wrong CT for Sanders, that's a GOP CT against Latinos. If anything that would have favored Sanders given he didn't do well with Hispanics in Utah. Not sure I've seen any evidence Latinos are going for Sanders in a big way.

You said this,

Regardless of whether you think those neighborhoods would have gone to Sanders or Clinton isn't the issue here, which I said at the outset I wasn't going to call either way, as that isn't the real issue. This election so far has been heavily tainted by irregularities and outright fraud on both the GOP and Democrat side, more blatantly so with the Democratic primaries. This is not the first time in this primary election that voters have been turned away from the polls or not allowed to vote for highly suspect and outright specious reasons. Worse than gerrymandering going on here.

But then you went on to tell us how many Latinos would be likely Sanders voters.

You said this which isn't the case (sorry, I may have rearranged the paragraphs when cutting and pasting):

Wait what? Clinton won't do better than Sanders among low-income Hispanics (who have voted for Sanders in other states), and it won't matter in the general election anyway; but big Clinton wins in highly conservative GOP-dominated Southern states that have very consistently voted Republican in all but one election of the last 40 years means that she's the right choice in the general election and more electable than Sanders?

You're making me dizzy here with all that spinning.

The fact is, Hispanics have been fairly evenly split depending on region and income level, with lower income Hispanics going more toward Sanders (see Illinois) and middle-class (predominantly Cuban) Hispanics going to Clinton. Which were the ones disenfranchised here in Arizona.

Really?

Not paying much attention I guess: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11193199#post11193199

I have 16.5 on ignore, didn't see his post. But as usual there is no citation to go with his assertion, one reason I don't bother with his posts. Is his post your evidence?

I posted links which painted a different picture.


So back to this discussion, which is it, suppressing the Latino vote was

a CT against Sanders,
a CT that affected Sanders' votes but it wasn't intended
a CT against Latinos that didn't affect Clinton or Sanders differently
or, something else?​

You're saying on the one hand that you never said the Latino voter suppression hut Sanders yet here are these other posts claiming low income Latinos would have favored Sanders.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not just the Sanders thread, every thread.

But to her credit, she has made a full disclosure; [snipped continued sexist remarks]

Everyone here has made their positions known. How does that matter?

 

[The Big Dog]

I have 16.5 on ignore, didn't see his post. But as usual there is no citation to go with his assertion, one reason I don't bother with his posts. Is his post your evidence?

.

Denial ain't pretty Clinton Precinct Captain.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ains-between-chicagos-black-and-latino-voters

My internet has google! Pity Clinton Campaign Worker's computers don't

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...except that some of them actually had physical proof of the fact that they had registered as democrats, and were still given provisional ballots that have not been counted.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...s-and-Suppression-in-Arizona#comment_60523901



Yeah, I know... it's KOS, but still.

I'm going to stop short of saying that Sanders should have won Arizona. However, I do think it's apparent that the vote totals were compromised, from what I know about the situation. Even if a majority failed to register in time (which doesn't seem to be the case), it is still a situation of Hillary winning on a technicality related to voter suppression through over regulation.

I looked at the Daily KOS article, I found a lot of assertions but little evidence.

This is an assertion:

Lifetime Democrats were erroneously listed as Independent, Republican, Libertarian, and “no affiliation”. None of their votes will count.

I noted some of these people have been voting Democratic candidates for so long they've forgotten how they initially registered.

I'm waiting for the evidence. I'm perfectly open to adding this insult to the lack of polling places injury - when the evidence surfaces.

I wait to see what this is about:

In Yavapai County, 2/3rds of voters in one precinct were mistakenly identified as independent. All of them were given provisional ballots (which as we now know, will not be counted). The election day technician in Yavapai indicates that “this is the same exact thing that voters have been experiencing in Pima and Maricopa County all day.”

A lot of the rest are straw men as far as this thread is concerned. No one is denying Latinos were disenfranchised. Or that it was a Partisan issue for Bernie Whiners. (The issue isn't, their claims of it affecting the outcome waits to be seen.)

 

[Trakar]

[qimg]https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/535252_1091497234276663_7651478801868349237_n.png?oh=292158ccca5890b81aea58f76d3c8912&oe=574AEAFC[/qimg]

Literally ROFLOL! unexpected hilarity as I scroll back through the days detritus.

Thanks for the break!

 

[wareyin]

Factoring in Clinton's super delegates, Sanders needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates to get the nom. Looks likely that he'll win the next several states, maybe even get 5 in a row, but that 68% just isn't going to happen.

 

[Manopolus]

Factoring in Clinton's super delegates, Sanders needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates to get the nom. Looks likely that he'll win the next several states, maybe even get 5 in a row, but that 68% just isn't going to happen.

As said many times, super delegates don't vote until the convention. If they overturn the pledged delegates, they might as well vote to dissolve the party, because that is de facto what will happen. That is one case where I don't think Sanders will even drop out of the race. At a guess, he'd form a coalition ticket with Jill Stein (Green Party), like she's been yammering for anyway. There's no way in hell anyone would accept that type of win.

So, in other words, there's no point in counting super delegates. If they don't vote as the population does, the whole party is screwed. The only good reason for super delegates to vote against the public is if some scandal broke out that compromised an otherwise winning candidate -- like if they got charged with a crime or something.

In case you hadn't noticed, the super delegates had Clinton beating Obama right up until the convention in 2008. There's a good reason why enough switched their votes to go with the pledged delegate candidate.

 

[jhunter1163]

As said many times, super delegates don't vote until the convention. If they overturn the pledged delegates, they might as well vote to dissolve the party, because that is de facto what will happen. That is one case where I don't think Sanders will even drop out of the race. At a guess, he'd form a coalition ticket with Jill Stein (Green Party), like she's been yammering for anyway. There's no way in hell anyone would accept that type of win.

So, in other words, there's no point in counting super delegates. If they don't vote as the population does, the whole party is screwed. The only good reason for super delegates to vote against the public is if some scandal broke out that compromised the otherwise winning candidate -- like if they got arrested for something.

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.

 

[wareyin]

As said many times, super delegates don't vote until the convention. If they overturn the pledged delegates, they might as well vote to dissolve the party, because that is de facto what will happen. That is one case where I don't think Sanders will even drop out of the race. At a guess, he'd form a coalition ticket with Jill Stein (Green Party), like she's been yammering for anyway. There's no way in hell anyone would accept that type of win.

So, in other words, there's no point in counting super delegates. If they don't vote as the population does, the whole party is screwed. The only good reason for super delegates to vote against the public is if some scandal broke out that compromised an otherwise winning candidate -- like if they got charged with a crime or something.

Why do you continue to assume that the supers would be voting different from the population? Clinton has over 2.5 million more votes than Sanders at this point, she's favored in NY, PA, CA, MD, and more of the States that haven't voted yet. The supers aren't going to change their votes and go against the popular vote to give Sanders the nomination.

 

[Manopolus]

Why do you continue to assume that the supers would be voting different from the population? Clinton has over 2.5 million more votes than Sanders at this point, she's favored in NY, PA, CA, MD, and more of the States that haven't voted yet. The supers aren't going to change their votes and go against the popular vote to give Sanders the nomination.

I didn't say that. I said that counting super delegates is pointless. As to what the actual pledged delegates happen to end up being, that is data that we don't have yet.

 

[Manopolus]

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.

Okay Mr. Psychic. Whatever you say. There will come a time when we have actual data. I'll just hope that you're wrong.

 

[wareyin]

I didn't say that. I said that counting super delegates is pointless. As to what the actual pledged delegates happen to end up being, that is data that we don't have yet.

No, super delegate votes count just as much as pledged delegate votes. Ignoring them because they aren't in favor of your candidate is a short-sighted way of making ones self feel better.

 

[Manopolus]

No, super delegate votes count just as much as pledged delegate votes. Ignoring them because they aren't in favor of your candidate is a short-sighted way of making ones self feel better.

Sure they count. The problem is that they haven't voted yet. You're counting endorsements, not votes.

 

[wareyin]

Okay Mr. Psychic. Whatever you say. There will come a time when we have actual data. I'll just hope that you're wrong.

It's a good thing you aren't in charge of the MDC, or it would have been given away every time Nate Silver makes another prediction based on polling.

Wait, didn't you accept the polls that show Sanders ahead in Washington? Did that make you psychic?

 

[Manopolus]

It's a good thing you aren't in charge of the MDC, or it would have been given away every time Nate Silver makes another prediction based on polling.

Wait, didn't you accept the polls that show Sanders ahead in Washington? Did that make you psychic?

I haven't yet seen a poll that shows Sanders ahead in Washington. Is there one? The last poll I saw about Washington included Elizabeth Warren as a possible candidate and happened in May of last year. Clinton was the actual leader in that poll, although Warren/Sanders combined beat her. It was also long enough ago that name recognition was a bit of a factor.

 

[wareyin]

I haven't yet seen a poll that shows Sanders ahead in Washington. Is there one? The last poll I saw about Washington included Elizabeth Warren as a possible candidate and happened in May of last year. Clinton was the actual leader in that poll, although Warren/Sanders combined beat her. It was also long enough ago that name recognition was a bit of a factor.

Your post #4230 is what I'm talking about.

 

[Manopolus]

Your post #4230 is what I'm talking about.

Yep, same poll I just mentioned. Was it a vague indicator of what might happen? Maybe. However, it sure as hell wasn't an indication of anything resembling a concrete result.

 

[wareyin]

Yep, same poll I just mentioned. Was it a vague indicator of what might happen? Maybe. However, it sure as hell wasn't an indication of the result.

Because it is old, and uses outdated information, it gives a vague indication. The polls that Nate Silver uses are not old, and not using outdated information, and so give much better predictive ability to people reading them. This does not make those of us who can read them psychic.

 

[Manopolus]

Because it is old, and uses outdated information, it gives a vague indication. The polls that Nate Silver uses are not old, and not using outdated information, and so give much better predictive ability to people reading them. This does not make those of us who can read them psychic.

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.

 

[wareyin]

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.

No one has claimed Silver conducts his own polls, but he certainly vets the polls he uses. You really should read up on the guy before making silly claims like this.