• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ammonitida said:
After Hillary had the "momentum" of winning six straight. I don't think "momentum" is playing any role, just racial demographics.
Click to expand...

The difference between caucuses and primaries have been more meaningful than anything racial. Also, the age demographics are more pertinent. If you consider -both- age and race combined, there is no racial divide for people under 45 or so. I suspect it's more of a religion thing for the older folks. White people that vote for Democrats just happen to be the least religious demographic in the party. Religious white people tend to be Republicans -- particularly if you're looking for ones that are biased enough for it to matter.

I find the demographic splitting to be offensive anyway though. I don't think we should even publicly report on such things. It causes broad generalizations and assumptions that quite frankly aren't good for society.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you confused about how one attacks this strategically? You don't expect to do well in Progressive caucus states, you aim your resources at Primary states.
Click to expand...

So just let Bernie roll over Hillary in these caucus states with more 70-20 landslides, erasing her lead, while banking on California (50-50), New York, and PA to bail her out? That doesn't sound like a good strategy.

Just how many delegates do the rest of these caucus states have? Couldn't winning the rest of the caucus states by 70-20 wipe out any of Hillary's predicted wins in those three states?
 
Alaska's final pledged delegate count is 13-3. I won't count superdelegates (unhatched chickens), but there's only 1/4 of those that have made a choice anyway -- for Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
If you consider -both- age and race combined, there is no racial divide for people under 45 or so. I suspect it's more of a religion thing for the older folks. White people that vote for Democrats just happen to be the least religious demographic in the party. Religious white people tend to be Republicans -- particularly if you're looking for ones that are biased enough for it to matter.
Click to expand...

Isn't King County the very place that has the most minorities in Washington? It's King County that's keeping Washington from being a complete disaster for Hillary ATM. I'm sure the significant Asian population has something to do with that. During the 2008 primaries, Asian-American voters heavily favored her over Obama (80-20).
 
Ammonitida said:
So just let Bernie roll over Hillary in these caucus states with more 70-20 landslides, erasing her lead, while banking on California (50-50), New York, and PA to bail her out? That doesn't sound like a good strategy.

Just how many delegates do the rest of these caucus states have? Couldn't winning the rest of the caucus states by 70-20 wipe out any of Hillary's predicted wins in those three states?
Click to expand...

But it didn't erase her lead now did it?

And total caucus delegates left is 132 if I counted right. Why not focus on the primary delegate rich states?
 
Ammonitida said:
Isn't King County the very place that has the most minorities in Washington? It's King County that's keeping Washington from being a complete disaster for Hillary ATM. I'm sure the significant Asian population has something to do with that. During the 2008 primaries, Asian-American voters heavily favored her over Obama (80-20).
Click to expand...

We have the most blacks but there are more Hispanics in Eastern WA.
 
Ammonitida said:
Isn't King County the very place that has the most minorities in Washington? It's King County that's keeping Washington from being a complete disaster for Hillary ATM. I'm sure the significant Asian population has something to do with that. During the 2008 primaries, Asian-American voters heavily favored her over Obama (80-20).
Click to expand...

I would assume so. It's basically Seattle proper by the looks of the map. I've never actually been in the state though. I've been through Northern California, but never made it any further north on the left coast.
 
Last edited:
Still waiting on Clark County (Vancouver -- WA, not Canada) too. That one should have a large vote count as well, although it shows up as only one precinct on my map. It's basically a suburb of Portland, Oregon, looks like... across the river from it, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yes Vancouver is sort of a Portland suburb. The other unreported county is Whatcom, a center of the most Progressive area of the state.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you defending Bush now?

Seriously dude, you need to lighten up on Clinton supporters. We're ultimately on the same side.
Click to expand...

Anyone who's been paying any attention at all can see that Clinton isn't on the same side as Sanders. That's a huge, stinking load, and if she gets nominated, I'm going to love watching her try to sell that to us.
 
sounds so nice I said it twice!

/something is hinky with the board lately.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Pledged delegates update

Clinton - 1,223
Sanders - 920
Available - 2,129

Bernie needs to win 57.1% of the remaining delegates to break even. By a happy coincidence, this is roughly the same margin Hillary has been winning by to date.
Click to expand...
Fivethirtyeight has slightly different numbers: Hillary 1,229 and Bernie 933, so a gap of 296. They've also tried to model, based on demographics, how many delegates they should win in each state to be on track for a majority, and came up with (before today): Hilllary 1,113.5 vs. Bernie 1,048.5.

So they do support the notion from the various Bernie supporters in this thread that Bernie will do better in the second half of the primary race. But the gap they think Bernie could afford - 65 - is a far cry from the actual gap of 296.

And the results that now come in from Alaska and Washington are much better than that model. I still think it's not realistic that Bernie will in the end have a majority of pledged delegates, but today has certainly increased his chances.

As to the super-delegates: I agree that they can still switch sides until the ballot at the convention. And it has also been noted that they will not go against the will of the voters. Some posters here have pointed out that more people have voted for Hillary, not in the last place because she's done better in primaries whereas Bernie has done better in caucuses.

So what is the will of the voters, in the hypothetical that Bernie wins in pledged delegates, but Hillary wins in number of votes?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Anyone who's been paying any attention at all can see that Clinton isn't on the same side as Sanders. That's a huge, stinking load, and if she gets nominated, I'm going to love watching her try to sell that to us.
Click to expand...

Needless to say, you're wrong. :p

So I agree to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom