[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Deleted]

The full TYT interview of Bernie Sanders is on Youtube now:

[Judgedredd]

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

when Sanders eventually puts up the white flag we are all going to rub it in and say we told you so.

Honestly, you socialist types are demonstrating that nasty streak that has sullied your brand. and by nasty streak I mean that almost communist zeal where those who don't agree with you are the enemies who must be smashed for the glory of the proletariat and all that mumbo-jumbo.

Heavens forbid the likes of you guys ever come into power. An absolute monarchy would be preferable to that Orwellian nightmare.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Skroe;39444851]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.

[COLOR="#417394"][SIZE=1]

- - - Updated - - -

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.

These Bernie diehards are in a similar situation to the Jews during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, they just cannot see when they are beaten. Going to have to hammer the point home to them. And when Clinton has clinched all the big states I wonder what they are going to come up with when Bernie has to get victories with 90-10 margins (wait don't tell me he is actually going to best the near deity-like George Washington's record of winning 100% of the vote).

[Deleted]

People realize Trump is going to do to Bernie what he did to Jeb right?

Hell they can hold hands jumping off the Trump tower after he ruins them.

[ringpriest]

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 - - -



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.

But it is, if we go back to the reasons he originally got into the race - Sanders thinks the Democratic Party (of which I'm reasonably sure he is not technically even a member, though they were gracious enough to let him run for their nomination) needs to be pushed or pulled further to the left, and intended to a be a force moving the party in that direction through his presidential run. He was not in this to win it until sometime this year, when the Clinton campaign's multiple missteps, stumbles, and poor choices gave him a real shot.

Now, it's not anything close to mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination at this point, but it is becoming increasingly improbable (barring something catastrophic happening to Clinton - medical issue, plane crash, assassination, etc.) so he's falling back to his original mission plan: push the Dems to the left. The best way he has to do this is to get 25% of the delegates in order to get more influence at the convention - that works out to something around 1200, but I expect he'd want a few more than that as a margin (personally, I'd go for 1400-1500). If he drops out now, he probably won't hit that 25% threshold, likewise, if he says "I'm only running for delegates at the convention" it's tantamount to a withdrawal and hurts his campaign (and fundraising).

The real threat in all this though, is Trump (or any other eventual Republican nominee) - every dollar, every day Hillary has to fight Bernie to hold onto the nomination is money and time that her campaign isn't focusing on the general, and can be seen as potentially weakening her against a potential Republican challenger. That being said, I still think Bernie should stay in, to keep her honest and push things in the direction they need to go if the US is going to have a chance. But there are definitely arguments to be made either way.

[McCulloch]

I'm a strong Hillary supporter, but I'm glad he's still in it. He made Hillary a stronger candidate, made sure the only stories about her aren't about the emails, and helped the Democratic Party in getting media coverage in the year of Trump.

Is it a bit of a financial drain on her? Sure, but not huge. Is he prolonging the primary? Yeah, but it doesn't seem to be hurting Hillary in any big way. She seems fine balancing Sanders and pivoting to the general with her attacks on Trump and Cruz.

I don't see many negatives to his candidacy.

[Gray_Matter]

But it is, if we go back to the reasons he originally got into the race - Sanders thinks the Democratic Party (of which I'm reasonably sure he is not technically even a member, though they were gracious enough to let him run for their nomination) needs to be pushed or pulled further to the left, and intended to a be a force moving the party in that direction through his presidential run. He was not in this to win it until sometime this year, when the Clinton campaign's multiple missteps, stumbles, and poor choices gave him a real shot.

Now, it's not anything close to mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination at this point, but it is becoming increasingly improbable (barring something catastrophic happening to Clinton - medical issue, plane crash, assassination, etc.) so he's falling back to his original mission plan: push the Dems to the left. The best way he has to do this is to get 25% of the delegates in order to get more influence at the convention - that works out to something around 1200, but I expect he'd want a few more than that as a margin (personally, I'd go for 1400-1500). If he drops out now, he probably won't hit that 25% threshold, likewise, if he says "I'm only running for delegates at the convention" it's tantamount to a withdrawal and hurts his campaign (and fundraising).

If that is his intention then he risks making her lose as a side effect. The longer he is in the race, the less Clinton is able to focus on the general election. As I said before, the desires of the democratic faithful don't necessarily match up with the moderates.

[Judgedredd]

But it is, if we go back to the reasons he originally got into the race - Sanders thinks the Democratic Party (of which I'm reasonably sure he is not technically even a member, though they were gracious enough to let him run for their nomination) needs to be pushed or pulled further to the left, and intended to a be a force moving the party in that direction through his presidential run. He was not in this to win it until sometime this year, when the Clinton campaign's multiple missteps, stumbles, and poor choices gave him a real shot.

Now, it's not anything close to mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination at this point, but it is becoming increasingly improbable (barring something catastrophic happening to Clinton - medical issue, plane crash, assassination, etc.) so he's falling back to his original mission plan: push the Dems to the left. The best way he has to do this is to get 25% of the delegates in order to get more influence at the convention - that works out to something around 1200, but I expect he'd want a few more than that as a margin (personally, I'd go for 1400-1500). If he drops out now, he probably won't hit that 25% threshold, likewise, if he says "I'm only running for delegates at the convention" it's tantamount to a withdrawal and hurts his campaign (and fundraising).

The real threat in all this though, is Trump (or any other eventual Republican nominee) - every dollar, every day Hillary has to fight Bernie to hold onto the nomination is money and time that her campaign isn't focusing on the general, and can be seen as potentially weakening her against a potential Republican challenger. That being said, I still think Bernie should stay in, to keep her honest and push things in the direction they need to go if the US is going to have a chance. But there are definitely arguments to be made either way.

You do realise Hillary is widely perceived to say almost anything to get the votes and then use some arcane excuse such as bureaucratic resistance or perhaps special interests to then cop out right?

The Hunger Games character Alma Coin, played by Julianne Moore in the films, is largely meant to be an allegory to her. She shares that same lust for power Clinton does. As for something catastrophic you could have suggested something more realistic such as getting indicted for a certain misdemeanour she committed.

- - - Updated - - -

If that is his intention then he risks making her lose as a side effect. The longer he is in the race, the less Clinton is able to focus on the general election. As I said before, the desires of the democratic faithful don't necessarily match up with the moderates.

I wonder if Trump is going to call Clinton a feminazi if it comes down to the two. That would be pure gold.

[Deleted]

Honestly, you socialist types are demonstrating that nasty streak that has sullied your brand. and by nasty streak I mean that almost communist zeal where those who don't agree with you are the enemies who must be smashed for the glory of the proletariat and all that mumbo-jumbo.

It's Hillary supporters who are constantly, time and time again, exhibiting asshole behavior, mocking and belittling Bernie Sanders supporters. If there are any nasty people who are sullying anything, it's the Hillary supporters.

when Sanders eventually puts up the white flag we are all going to rub it in and say we told you so.

And this is exactly why Sanders supporters are not going to vote for Hillary, and why Hillary, if she is the nominee, will lose to Trump, or Cruz, or whomever the Republican party puts up.

Honestly, you socialist types are demonstrating that nasty streak that has sullied your brand. and by nasty streak I mean that almost communist zeal where those who don't agree with you are the enemies who must be smashed for the glory of the proletariat and all that mumbo-jumbo.

Heavens forbid the likes of you guys ever come into power. An absolute monarchy would be preferable to that Orwellian nightmare.

And besides, the BernieBro circle jerk

These Bernie diehards are in a similar situation to the Jews during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, they just cannot see when they are beaten. Going to have to hammer the point home to them.

Yeah... I wonder who the real asshole here is?

[Gray_Matter]

And this is exactly why Sanders supporters are not going to vote for Hillary, and why Hillary, if she is the nominee, will lose to Trump, or Cruz, or whomever the Republican party puts up.

How can you possibly speak for the Bernie supporters in the US? There is a lot more at stake for them. It won't make any difference one way or the other to you but when things like $15 per hour minimum wage and other democratic policies are at stake then it makes absolutely no sense for them not to vote for whoever wins the democratic nomination. That applies to both candidates. The two parties are quite divided on a lot of issues (both social and economic) and letting the other side win will be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Even more is at stake with the Supreme Court. The same applies to Trump for a lot of republicans. They will have to coalesce behind him, to a certain extent, if he wins the nomination.

[Deleted]

it makes absolutely no sense for them not to vote for whoever wins the democratic nomination

Yeah, and that's where the Hillary side logic starts to fail. Have you actually listened to what Sanders supporters, in the US, have been saying? Why are they supporting Sanders, why are they enthusiastic about the political process right now, why do they even care?

All I see you having is the same old "well that makes no sense" -point of view.

[Skroe]

But it is, if we go back to the reasons he originally got into the race - Sanders thinks the Democratic Party (of which I'm reasonably sure he is not technically even a member, though they were gracious enough to let him run for their nomination) needs to be pushed or pulled further to the left, and intended to a be a force moving the party in that direction through his presidential run. He was not in this to win it until sometime this year, when the Clinton campaign's multiple missteps, stumbles, and poor choices gave him a real shot.

Now, it's not anything close to mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination at this point, but it is becoming increasingly improbable (barring something catastrophic happening to Clinton - medical issue, plane crash, assassination, etc.) so he's falling back to his original mission plan: push the Dems to the left. The best way he has to do this is to get 25% of the delegates in order to get more influence at the convention - that works out to something around 1200, but I expect he'd want a few more than that as a margin (personally, I'd go for 1400-1500). If he drops out now, he probably won't hit that 25% threshold, likewise, if he says "I'm only running for delegates at the convention" it's tantamount to a withdrawal and hurts his campaign (and fundraising).

The real threat in all this though, is Trump (or any other eventual Republican nominee) - every dollar, every day Hillary has to fight Bernie to hold onto the nomination is money and time that her campaign isn't focusing on the general, and can be seen as potentially weakening her against a potential Republican challenger. That being said, I still think Bernie should stay in, to keep her honest and push things in the direction they need to go if the US is going to have a chance. But there are definitely arguments to be made either way.

The thing is, I'm not quite sure what tangible results come from "influencing things at the convention". Have influence over some party statement of principles? Hillary Clinton will just lie through her teeth. And that's not a Hillary thing. That's a basic survival thing. You don't go into a hostile audience and tell them they're wrong, if you want their support. And besides, keep in mind the most likely structure of things post end-of-Primary season (and pre-convention mind you) is that Hillary Clinton moves towards the center, big time, to try and appeal to conservatives who are disgusted with Trump and Republicans (like me), independents and moderates. Meanwhile her left flank will be covered by Barack Obama, who intends to campaign very hard this summer and fall, and since he isn't exactly a popular person with the center-right or various parts of the country Clinton would like to wind, I anticipate him putting on his old 2008 Primary "Senator Obama, liberal warrior" Halloween Costume. And furthermore, if I can just speculate here for a moment, Hillary's VP is almost certainly going to be a liberal "future of the Democratic party" figure, not another 60+ year older. Likely Hispanic or interracial.

So putting all this together, whats the most tangible thing sanders gets for his trouble? A voice in choosing the VP? That's what's really missing for me in that reasoning. He want's influence, but it's like we all have amnesia about how politics works. There is absolutely nothing to indicate anything he can do short of demanding to be Clinton's chief of staff (which won't happen) to say that the recent bout of left-aligned politics Sanders has brought about among Democrats will persist into the General election, let alone her administration. Of course, I could be wrong. You give me the glaringly obvious "win" he gets, keeping in mind how efficient and ruthless the Clintons are at managing their power base, that i'm overlooking, and I'll change my tune on him staying in. But I simply don't buy any kind of "moral victory" argument.

If Sanders would really want to do something lasting, he would focus on getting liberal democrats into the House and Senate so that his liberal successor, a decade or more from now, will have the Congress he needs to pass a liberal policy agenda. But with Democratic rule in statehouses having cataclysmic-ally collapsed since 2010, the next real opportunity to effect large scale change is after the 2020 census and redistricting. This goes back to the very first thing I said about Bernie sanders, last August or something: that he's the candidate that liberals should want at the end of the process of remaking government, not the start. Obama's first two years and landslide election came on the other end of nearly a decade and a half of Democrats trying to reverse the disaster of 1994, recover from 2000, and with of course, the assist of a deeply unpopular Republican President and a largely discredited Republican party, admits a financial crisis.

Half of everything is timing right? Obama's timing in 2008 couldn't have been better. Sanders has no timing to help him in 2016. Hell, even Hillary would be in greater jeopardy (perhaps) if Donald Trump hadn't demolished the 2016 Republican field (although the electoral votes map for Republicans is just very hard no matter what).

But I mean, we're going for two separate things. Hillary will govern as a more conservative version of Obama on Foreign Policy, and mostly where Obama is most other places. But it'll be status quo unless those things are important to you. And very far from that revolution Sanders irresponsibly advocates for.

- - - Updated - - -

It's Hillary supporters who are constantly, time and time again, exhibiting asshole behavior, mocking and belittling Bernie Sanders supporters. If there are any nasty people who are sullying anything, it's the Hillary supporters.



And this is exactly why Sanders supporters are not going to vote for Hillary, and why Hillary, if she is the nominee, will lose to Trump, or Cruz, or whomever the Republican party puts up.

You keep saying this and yet polls have never agreed with you.

This isn't even wishful thinking. It's delusion. Stop lying to yourself. Nobody believes you and you look foolish saying it.

And I'm going to prove it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-in-one-poll/




Let me break this down for you. Among Democrats, only 6% of them would NEVER vote for Clinton. Among Independents, 46% would never vote for Clinton... but 54% would never vote for Trump.

So this undermines several key points with your argument:

-Epirically, we have evidence that 94% of Democrats would vote Clinton.

-If you accept that some percentage, perhaps large percentage, of Bernie Supporters are independents and not democrats, then you can certainly claim that some percentage of them would legitimately never vote Clinton. But some would. And furthermore that same metric against Donald Trump is much higher. Trump has can count on a smaller share of the indepnedent pool, no matter if Sanderistas vote for her or not. We can also take this to say that if we have Trump versus Clinton, more Indepndents will stay home or vote for Hillary, than they would stay home or vote for Trump.

-17% of Republicans would never vote for Trump. Democrats also out number Republicans in this country (though to be fair, only swing states truly matter), meaning Trump's has a much higher voter turnout requirement.

Then there is General Election Matchups.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-t...y-cbsnyt-poll/

Clinton versus Trump - Clinton wins by 10 points among registered voters.
Clinton versus Cruz - Clinton wins by 3 points among registered voters.
Clinton versus Kasich - Clinton LOSES by 4 points among registered voters. But Kaisich is mathematically disqualified from being the nominee.

That Kaisich does so well indicates that with Independents the largest voter base in this country by far, and the US being largely a center-right country, the reason Clinton, a generally unpopular figure, does well because Trump and Cruz are so far to the right, that when a more consistent center-right candidate comes along in Kasich (who isn't someone I'd vote for... he is not a moderate but plays one on TV), he beats the generally unpopular Clinton.

Putting all of this together, we can completely discount your entire post that Sanders is the only pathway to victory. Quite the contrary, for all the hullabaloo about burning down the system from extremists like Sanders and Trump, the status quo - be it in the form of Clinton or Kasich - is enduring.

[Gray_Matter]

Yeah, and that's where the Hillary side logic starts to fail. Have you actually listened to what Sanders supporters, in the US, have been saying? Why are they supporting Sanders, why are they enthusiastic about the political process right now, why do they even care?

All I see you having is the same old "well that makes no sense" -point of view.

The most recent exit polls asked voters if they would be happy to support the other party. 84% of Bernie's supporters said they would. Right now, Bernie has 40% odd of the vote on the democratic side. So that would make about 6.5% of the voters in the democratic primaries unlikely to vote for her. Even if you look at the most recent poll, that's 33% of 40% which is 13%. Compared to the GOP which has a figure of 50% of people unhappy to vote for the other party it's a completely different story. To further complicate matters, a large number of Bernie's voters are actually independents and not democrats. They are new to the voting process.

[Wildtree]

all that fighting and arguing.. for what?

The attacks on skroe are (though sometimes warranted) pointless. He only says the obvious. Only points out the condensed information available across all news outlets, no matter their own position on the political scale.

I like Bernie. He provides - or say did provide - a fresh breeze.
But at the end of the day he is lacking the same thing Trump is lacking, and that is substance.
Though he does a better job than Trump when it comes to offerings of solutions. It isn't enough.
I would have liked to hear a lot more substantial information, a lot more solutions.

Besides.. I am strongly convinced that he shot himself in the foot right at the beginning.
He missed a huge opportunity too to set the records straight and get the USA up to snuff with the rest of the World.
He called himself a socialist. And that is false. Because he ain't a socialist. He's a social democrat.
That is, and always was worlds apart of a difference. Had he used the correct label, it wouldn't have created that artificial barrier of fear and disgust on the right.
And I think he would have had a serious shot at becoming the next president. But as it stands, it's essentially over.
Plus.. There's another aspect to be considered for educated voters..
Do you really want to vote for someone who's going to be the lamest of all lame duck presidents in the recent past?
We see how Obama struggles with a congress in opposition. In relaxed words, Bernie couldn't get the breakfast order at the nearest restaurant passed.
He'd need serious support from house and senate. Yet, the Dems regaining the majority there anytime soon, is rather not going to happen.

[Deleted]

In relaxed words, Bernie couldn't get the breakfast order at the nearest restaurant passed.

Bernie has said repeatedly he was going to use his grassroots movement to force a change in congress.

The alternative is that you continue to allow the corporations to run everything and be a democracy only in name. It doesn't really matter who gets in, given that context. I'd venture that for a truly educated person this subservience to big business is unendurable.

It would be difficult for Sanders to pull off change, but not impossible.

[Skroe]

Bernie has said repeatedly he was going to use his grassroots movement to force a change in congress.

The alternative is that you continue to allow the corporations to run everything and be a democracy only in name. It doesn't really matter who gets in, given that context. I'd venture that for a truly educated person this subservience to big business is unendurable.

It would be difficult for Sanders to pull off change, but not impossible.

Just going to point out, that in my fathers and mine's experience, vastly more capable and intelligent scientists/engineers work for "big business" than academia.

Bernie's business bashing is detached from reality for anyone whose worked more than a stockboy job at Target, especially if you're educated and able to get a job where you use your brain rather than your muscles.

[Targis]

Just going to point out, that in my fathers and mine's experience, vastly more capable and intelligent scientists/engineers work for "big business" than academia.

Bernie's business bashing is detached from reality for anyone whose worked more than a stockboy job at Target, especially if you're educated and able to get a job where you use your brain rather than your muscles.

I don't know what your statement has to do with anything, but of course scientists are going to work for corporations. They pay better. You know how much oil companies pay "scientists" to say climate change is a hoax? And if "business bashing" is a sign of a lack of intelligence, why are the most educated among us usually liberal?

[Valerean]

I don't know what your statement has to do with anything, but of course scientists are going to work for corporations. They pay better. You know how much oil companies pay "scientists" to say climate change is a hoax? And if "business bashing" is a sign of a lack of intelligence, why are the most educated among us usually liberal?

Because what ' educated intellectuals' tend to preach about apocryphal 'big business' from their seminar pulpits =/= reality, as anyone who's actually held a white collar job will probably tell you.

[Wildtree]

I don't know what your statement has to do with anything, but of course scientists are going to work for corporations. They pay better. You know how much oil companies pay "scientists" to say climate change is a hoax? And if "business bashing" is a sign of a lack of intelligence, why are the most educated among us usually liberal?

Not sure if you understood him correct.
Firstly, not every scientist that works for big business is automatically a sellout. As much as not every scientist that isn't employed by business is automatically more credible/honest. Bad apples exist everywhere.
Secondly, we need the private sector to finance science along with governmental sponsorship.
Neither is alone ideal.
A primarily government financed science field is subject to misuse by the government.
Same is to be said about science only sponsored by business.
It's a hand in hand operation that ensures the best progress.

Skroe expresses concern, that Bernie's ideas would possibly come with harmful side effects. And that might be true, if we talk about companies that aren't exclusively in the money business.

[Shadowferal]

Not sure if you understood him correct.

Yeah, Skroe has said before that he's a republican favoring Wall Street. The biggest reason why he supports a nominee that is the same, and the reason why he's trolling this thread whining how Sanders needs to quit before he gets more delegates and takes the win.

As said before, there are expected to be 4,765 delegates at the Democratic National Convention.

As of now:
Clinton has 1,223
Bernie has 920

25 states have yet to have their say in this.
Very curious to see how the weekend turns out.

[Wildtree]

As of now:
Clinton has 1,223
Bernie has 920

25 states have yet to have their say in this.
Very curious to see how the weekend turns out.

Well... that's not exactly accurate.. You ignoring the super delegates

with them included it is
Clinton: 1690
Sanders: 946

For the upcoming weekend, Clinton has a mini head start of 15 delegates vs Bernie has 1.