[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Deleted]

Read the post I replied to, they suggested that all of Sanders' support for alternative medicine was yoga and meditation. That clearly isn't the case. You may not care about legitimizing pseudo-science, but I do. This is the kind of shit that leads to people killing their kids because they refuse to seek treatment from an actual physician.

God you people have fucked-up priorities. She had a major role in the ongoing transition of trillions of dollars from rich to poor. If she gets in that all continues. You actually think yoga is a big issue in comparison to that?

[Skroe]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ets/democrats/

This webpage if you look down makes pretty clear why Sanders's is utterly fucked.

Let's look at New York, New Jersey, California and Pennsylvania. There is no winning the nomination without winning big in those states. Nobody cares about fucking Wyoming.

New York has 247 delegates. Hillary's target is 122 (49.39%). Bernie's target is 125(50.6%).
Bernie Sanders is currelntly trailing New York. Clinton is winning 71% to Sanders' 23%

New Jersey has 126 delegates. Hillary's target is 65 (51%). Sander's target is 61 (48%)
Clinton is leading 55% to Sander's 32%.

California has 475 delegates. Hillary's target is 236 (49%). Sander's target is 239 (50%).
THere isn't recent polling, but the most recent has Hillary winning 46% to Sanders' 35%. Furthermore this state has a lot of minorities, where Sanders performs poorly.

Lastly we have Pennsylvania (189 delegates). Rust belt country. Also very diverse in Pittsburgh and Philly. Clinton's target is 93 (49%). Sanders' target is 96 (51%).
Clinton leads Sanders 57% to 27%

Sanders has to close gaps ranging from 11 percentage points to 48 percentage points. And then some. he just can't win. He has to win big and all Hillary has to do is not lose big. Sanders, for example, doesn't just need to close his 30% deficit in Pennsylvania. He has to create another 15% lead in order to make up for Hillary's disproportionate wins.

A six weeks ago, HIllary was performing at 114% of her delgate total and Sanders was performing at 85%. Today, Hillary is at 111% and Sanders is 89% There are not enough weeks left in the primary and not enough big states for Sanders, for that gap to be closed.

This primary was all but over after March 15th. It'll be over again after New York on April 19th and the North East Corridor primary on April 26.

In 2008. Hillary Clinton got out after she lost the last big primary day on June 8th. Sanders should have done the right thing and officially got out last week. But he should do the right thing now and get out on April 27th at the latest. There is no reason to drag it on to June 8th.

[Deleted]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ets/democrats/

This webpage if you look down makes pretty clear why Sanders's is utterly fucked.

Let's look at New York, New Jersey, California and Pennsylvania. There is no winning the nomination without winning big in those states. Nobody cares about fucking Wyoming.

New York has 247 delegates. Hillary's target is 122 (49.39%). Bernie's target is 125(50.6%).
Bernie Sanders is currelntly trailing New York. Clinton is winning 71% to Sanders' 23%

New Jersey has 126 delegates. Hillary's target is 65 (51%). Sander's target is 61 (48%)
Clinton is leading 55% to Sander's 32%.

California has 475 delegates. Hillary's target is 236 (49%). Sander's target is 239 (50%).
THere isn't recent polling, but the most recent has Hillary winning 46% to Sanders' 35%. Furthermore this state has a lot of minorities, where Sanders performs poorly.

Lastly we have Pennsylvania (189 delegates). Rust belt country. Also very diverse in Pittsburgh and Philly. Clinton's target is 93 (49%). Sanders' target is 96 (51%).
Clinton leads Sanders 57% to 27%

Sanders has to close gaps ranging from 11 percentage points to 48 percentage points. And then some. he just can't win. He has to win big and all Hillary has to do is not lose big. Sanders, for example, doesn't just need to close his 30% deficit in Pennsylvania. He has to create another 15% lead in order to make up for Hillary's disproportionate wins.

A six weeks ago, HIllary was performing at 114% of her delgate total and Sanders was performing at 85%. Today, Hillary is at 111% and Sanders is 89% There are not enough weeks left in the primary and not enough big states for Sanders, for that gap to be closed.

This primary was all but over after March 15th. It'll be over again after New York on April 19th and the North East Corridor primary on April 26.

In 2008. Hillary Clinton got out after she lost the last big primary day on June 8th. Sanders should have done the right thing and officially got out last week. But he should do the right thing now and get out on April 27th at the latest. There is no reason to drag it on to June 8th.

Can I kindly request that people stop confusing the difference between low probability and zero probability.

Sanders is 15-1 on the exchanges. That's a probability of 6.67%. It has a low chance of happening but it is not zero. That price will include some very sharp money, probably insider information also. If you really think that Hilary is a slam dunk then you should be mortageing your house and putting money down.

[Matchles]

God you people have fucked-up priorities. She had a major role in the ongoing transition of trillions of dollars from rich to poor. If she gets in that all continues. You actually think yoga is a big issue in comparison to that?

No, she didn't, and you can repeat it as often as you like, it doesn't make it true. I can find multiple issues important at once. But then again, I'm not a Sanders voter. I have a little more to go on than a single issue.

[Gorsameth]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ets/democrats/

This webpage if you look down makes pretty clear why Sanders's is utterly fucked.

Let's look at New York, New Jersey, California and Pennsylvania. There is no winning the nomination without winning big in those states. Nobody cares about fucking Wyoming.

New York has 247 delegates. Hillary's target is 122 (49.39%). Bernie's target is 125(50.6%).
Bernie Sanders is currelntly trailing New York. Clinton is winning 71% to Sanders' 23%

New Jersey has 126 delegates. Hillary's target is 65 (51%). Sander's target is 61 (48%)
Clinton is leading 55% to Sander's 32%.

California has 475 delegates. Hillary's target is 236 (49%). Sander's target is 239 (50%).
THere isn't recent polling, but the most recent has Hillary winning 46% to Sanders' 35%. Furthermore this state has a lot of minorities, where Sanders performs poorly.

Lastly we have Pennsylvania (189 delegates). Rust belt country. Also very diverse in Pittsburgh and Philly. Clinton's target is 93 (49%). Sanders' target is 96 (51%).
Clinton leads Sanders 57% to 27%

Sanders has to close gaps ranging from 11 percentage points to 48 percentage points. And then some. he just can't win. He has to win big and all Hillary has to do is not lose big. Sanders, for example, doesn't just need to close his 30% deficit in Pennsylvania. He has to create another 15% lead in order to make up for Hillary's disproportionate wins.

A six weeks ago, HIllary was performing at 114% of her delgate total and Sanders was performing at 85%. Today, Hillary is at 111% and Sanders is 89% There are not enough weeks left in the primary and not enough big states for Sanders, for that gap to be closed.

This primary was all but over after March 15th. It'll be over again after New York on April 19th and the North East Corridor primary on April 26.

In 2008. Hillary Clinton got out after she lost the last big primary day on June 8th. Sanders should have done the right thing and officially got out last week. But he should do the right thing now and get out on April 27th at the latest. There is no reason to drag it on to June 8th.

Your numbers are all old.
Those targets were set from the start of primary, with the current results Sanders needs to win every single state left at a 58-42 or greater margin.

[Deleted]

No, she didn't, and you can repeat it as often as you like, it doesn't make it true. I can find multiple issues important at once. But then again, I'm not a Sanders voter. I have a little more to go on than a single issue.

No, you have yoga. I am sure you think that should have equal priority with the financial catacylsm that is virtually inevitable unless the banks are reined in.

[Skroe]

Can I kindly request that people stop confusing the difference between low probability and zero probability.

Sanders is 15-1 on the exchanges. That's a probability of 6.67%. It has a low chance of happening but it is not zero. That price will include some very sharp money, probably insider information also. If you really think that Hilary is a slam dunk then you should be mortageing your house and putting money down.

No. I'm not. Because we're over a week, but many weeks, past the need to indluge this farce.

And let's be clear. It is a farce. And we are indluging the Sanderistas.

While we fool around with Bernie's mathematically challenged platform, and his supporters who declare themselves "Democratic Socialists", even though they'll forget about that by late Summer, we have on the right, the emergence of a truly dangerous figure in the form of Donald Trump, and an only slightless less dangerous figure in the form of Ted Cruz. The former is a racist authoritarian figure. The latter is a self-aggrandizing egotist who took the US to the brink of default.

Democrats have been supremely patriotic the past decade saved this country from disasters that the hard right was all too happy to waltz into. It's going to do it again this fall, by slamming the door shut on Trump and what he represents.

But that effort needs to start now, in late March, and not in mid June. It's too dangerous, too uncertain to play "let's dabble with the Democratic Socialist". If we want to fool around when the Republican party puts up less dangerous figures, sure... let's go to June.

Not this year though. It's time for Sanders to go home.

[Matchles]

No, you have yoga. I am sure you think that should have equal priority with the financial catacylsm that is virtually inevitable unless the banks are reigned in.

No I have pragmatism, better policies and a whole host of other things on my side too. If you had bothered to read the conversation prior to injecting yourself into it you would have seen that my response was simply a list of potential things the right could attack Sanders on. If you can manage, why don't you go to Clinton's campaign site and read her plan for the banks. It isn't much different than Sanders'.

[Deleted]

No. I'm not. Because we're over a week, but many weeks, past the need to indluge this farce.

And let's be clear. It is a farce. And we are indluging the Sanderistas.

While we fool around with Bernie's mathematically challenged platform, and his supporters who declare themselves "Democratic Socialists", even though they'll forget about that by late Summer, we have on the right, the emergence of a truly dangerous figure in the form of Donald Trump, and an only slightless less dangerous figure in the form of Ted Cruz. The former is a racist authoritarian figure. The latter is a self-aggrandizing egotist who took the US to the brink of default.

Democrats have been supremely patriotic the past decade saved this country from disasters that the hard right was all too happy to waltz into. It's going to do it again this fall, by slamming the door shut on Trump and what he represents.

But that effort needs to start now, in late March, and not in mid June. It's too dangerous, too uncertain to play "let's dabble with the Democratic Socialist". If we want to fool around when the Republican party puts up less dangerous figures, sure... let's go to June.

Not this year though. It's time for Sanders to go home.

I don't think you should be using the term mathematically challenged. Working out Sanders probability of success is trivial and you don't seem capable of working it out even though I explained exactly how to do that.

[Skroe]

Your numbers are all old.
Those targets were set from the start of primary, with the current results Sanders needs to win every single state left at a 58-42 or greater margin.

Are you certain? Because I'm fairly positive Five Thirty Eight continues to update the delegate target based on ongoing outcomes. Because the performance number target keeps shifting. Are you sure you aren't confusing 58% of ALL delegates (to clinton's 42%) rather than state by state? Because in states I didn't list, Sander's performance requirement is far higher compared to Clinton, but they're low-delegate states (cumilitatively, they're a lot). It could very well work out to that 58 to 42% number, especially when Sanders needs to win 17 out of 29 in West Virginia (58.6%) to win, and situations like that.

It is however, not at all updated for favorability of conditions for a particular candidate in the state.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think you should be using the term mathematically challenged. Working out Sanders probability of success is trivial and you don't seem capable of working it out even though I explained exactly how to do that.

Oh I'm sorry, I meant mathematically challenged in terms of his actual agenda (especially the $1.3 trillion / year medicare joke), not his odds of winning. But I suppose his odds of winning are, how shall we say, improbable to say the least.

[charan25]

No I have pragmatism, better policies and a whole host of other things on my side too. If you had bothered to read the conversation prior to injecting yourself into it you would have seen that my response was simply a list of potential things the right could attack Sanders on. If you can manage, why don't you go to Clinton's campaign site and read her plan for the banks. It isn't much different than Sanders'.

Did she have those policies before or after she heard they were popular opinions?

[Deleted]

No I have pragmatism, better policies and a whole host of other things on my side too. If you had bothered to read the conversation prior to injecting yourself into it you would have seen that my response was simply a list of potential things the right could attack Sanders on. If you can manage, why don't you go to Clinton's campaign site and read her plan for the banks. It isn't much different than Sanders'.

The difference is, unlike Sanders, she's received millions of dollars from those banks and is essentially owned by them. It doesn't matter what she says, she won't do shit.

I honestly can't believe any one could be so naive. I'm thinking perhaps you people deserve Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you certain? Because I'm fairly positive Five Thirty Eight continues to update the delegate target based on ongoing outcomes. Because the performance number target keeps shifting. Are you sure you aren't confusing 58% of ALL delegates (to clinton's 42%) rather than state by state? Because in states I didn't list, Sander's performance requirement is far higher compared to Clinton, but they're low-delegate states (cumilitatively, they're a lot). It could very well work out to that 58 to 42% number, especially when Sanders needs to win 17 out of 29 in West Virginia (58.6%) to win, and situations like that.
[/COLOR]

I noticed they did a lot of updating after they got the result Michigan wrong by 20 points.

[Skroe]

I noticed they did a lot of updating after they got the result Michigan wrong by 20 points.

I have no idea what happened in Michigian. However all the polls there were done by 1 or 2 groups (a polling groups and a local ABC affiliate I think?). It was, in any event, a small time operation. Maybe it's not reasonable to expect a two-bit local news station to always get these things right.

I'm gonna guess someone was just garbage with their job and conducted a series of bad polls using bad samples.

To be honest, I'm rather surprised the AP or Pew or Gallup or someone extremely reputable isn't organizing state-by-state polling. Certainly it's not a willy-nilly thing... it takes financing and manpower and isn't cheap. But I'm really just shocked how it's been left largely to local colleges, local news-media and local groups.

[Deleted]

I have no idea what happened in Michigian. However all the polls there were done by 1 or 2 groups (a polling groups and a local ABC affiliate I think?). It was, in any event, a small time operation. Maybe it's not reasonable to expect a two-bit local news station to always get these things right.

I'm gonna guess someone was just garbage with their job and conducted a series of bad polls using bad samples.

To be honest, I'm rather surprised the AP or Pew or Gallup or someone extremely reputable isn't organizing state-by-state polling. Certainly it's not a willy-nilly thing... it takes financing and manpower and isn't cheap. But I'm really just shocked how it's been left largely to local colleges, local news-media and local groups.

I'm not sure what 538's excuse was in the UK elections.

I think you need to face up to the fact that 538 does not outperform the average of polls with any statistical significance. When the polls screw up they screw up.

[The Iron Fist]

Skroe, you are an ardent Sanders hater. WTH are you even in this thread? Just to stir trouble?

[Matchles]

The difference is, unlike Sanders, she's received millions of dollars from those banks and is essentially owned by them. It doesn't matter what she says, she won't do shit.

I honestly can't believe any one could be so naive. I'm thinking perhaps you people deserve Trump.

You have her entire Senate record. Show me where she broke with the party and sided with those paying her. These are just pathetic attacks against her. It is sad that Sanders has stooped to them. You have her record, show us where she is bought. And quit with this she got paid to make a speech so she will clearly do what they say :wink wink, nudge nudge:.

[The Iron Fist]

In 2008. Hillary Clinton got out after she lost the last big primary day on June 8th. Sanders should have done the right thing and officially got out last week. But he should do the right thing now and get out on April 27th at the latest. There is no reason to drag it on to June 8th.

How laughably ignorant. Why in the world would he get out? Clinton didn't against Obama when she was 200 delegates down. There are still 22 states and territories that get to vote and he's only behind by just over 300 delegates. California by itself is 475 delegates. Get out of here, man. At this point you're just trying to elicit reactions from Sanders supporters to get them riled up. There is a word for this, but MMO Champ freaks out when you use it.

[Matchles]

Did she have those policies before or after she heard they were popular opinions?

Why would it matter? Does a policy work better if those who sign them into law "truly" believe in them? Changing one's opinion with the electorate is the hallmark of a good politician, they are supposed to represent us after all.

[Skroe]

Skroe, you are an ardent Sanders hater. WTH are you even in this thread? Just to stir trouble?

Because where's the fun in debating with people you agree with? There is actually a thread on that very topic right now.

And besides, the BernieBro circle jerk could use some stirring. Someone has to break em out of spending their ti me conceiving increasingly improbable Sanders victory scenarios.

- - - Updated - - -

How laughably ignorant. Why in the world would he get out? Clinton didn't against Obama when she was 200 delegates down. There are still 22 states and territories that get to vote and he's only behind by just over 300 delegates. California by itself is 475 delegates. Get out of here, man. At this point you're just trying to elicit reactions from Sanders supporters to get them riled up. There is a word for this, but MMO Champ freaks out when you use it.

California has 475 delegates, and if polling holds, it'll be a massive pay day for Clinton, just like every other state that's been demographically comparable.

That's the problem with you people. You're hoping for the Sanders upset so much, you forget that in any state that isn't as white as a piece of printer paper, whch makes up all the huge delegate states. Hillary either wins big, wins moderately, or loses narrowly. But what she doesn't do is lose big. She only loses big in the whitest of white states.

ANd what sanders needs to make a state like California be worth waiting for, is a big win. Look at FIve Thirty Eight's performance requirements. In almost every one of those, all Clinton has to do is at the very least lose narrowly.

So let's flip this around. So tell me Iron First. How is Sanders going to get the 20% point wins in New York, California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Because that's what he needs. Beating her 51% to 49% isn't enough.

[InventiveMeasures]

Skroe, you are an ardent Sanders hater. WTH are you even in this thread? Just to stir trouble?

I skip his comments after reading that he doesn't like Mrs. Clinton, thinks she's an opportunist and dishonest yet he supports her. Not because of any of her policies (newly adopted ones and trying to mirror Sander's views) but because "she will maintain the status quo". That alone is hilariously ignorant and intellectually deceptive, but he's entitled to voice his opinion.

Side note: Cenk from The Young Turks held an interview recently with Mr. Sanders. There's clips on their youtube channel but if you want the full interview, here it is.