[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Zeth Hawkins]

Uh, your math isn't remotely right there bud. Like at all.

Highest bracket increased from 4% to 9%. 9-4=5. 5 is 125% of 4. So it grew by 125%

Lowest increased from 16% to 20%. 20-16=4. 4 is 25% is 16. So it grew by 25%

Middle decreased from 61% to 50%. 50-61=-11. 11 is 18% of 61. So it shrank by 18%

Upper increased from 10% to 12%. 12-10=2. 2 is 20% of 10. So it grew by 20%

Not hard, man.

[Skroe]

I'm a little tepid for a Bernie supporter, and I'm following all this at a remove - but from what I've been reading Nevada has indeed become a flashpoint and not for the end of support for Sanders, but rather for a break between the Sanders-supporting left and the Democratic establishment. The mainstream D narrative may be that the Sanders-supporters are out of control, but the narrative within the pro-Sanders left is that the DNC is blatantly stealing the primaries for Clinton (please note that I'm not saying they are, I'm saying that's what the Sander's supporters seem to think).

From that perspective, this is far, far from over and gets more likely by the day to stay contentious (and get more viscous) to the convention, if not beyond; which is bad news for both Clinton supporters and anyone who (as I do) wants Trump to lose (preferably by a landslide that buries him and punishes the Republicans for allowing, much less supporting, him).

The thing is, the Clinton / Establishment hold all the cards. Litterally all of them.

The Sanders campaign did not win a majority of the delegates (far from it). They did not win the popular vote. They did not win the states. They applaud hysterically undemocratic caucuses (where Sanders does well) but decry primaries where he does poorly as "rigged". They simply have no moral leg to stand on. They just want to win and don't want to lost.

The Sanders "movement" if there is such a thing, has few allies, little sustainable funds, and organization that pales in comparison to the Clinton / DNC operation.

The Sanders Insurrection, since Nevada, has given the anti-Sanders side the perfect example, the perfect weapon to use against them.

All put together, what is the Sanders group supposed to fight with? Their passion? Doesn't count for squat in the end. And Hillary probably doesn't even need the Sanderistas, especially if she finds other ways to appeal to the moderate to conservatives in swing states who are anti-Trump.

I mean once again, she just needs to win the 18 states + DC that Democrats have won handedly for the past 6 consecutive elections, plus Florida. What's more likely she finds in Florida - Sanderistas or disaffected moderated and Republicans disgusted by Trump? (for what it's worth, family connection here, my uncle, a prominent Latin American attorney, who has worked with Hillary Clinton before as Secretary of State, planned on supporting Jeb Bush, and is all in for Hillary because he is anti-Trump, but that's anectodal, but he is, very much your otherwise conservative Miami Hispanic/Cuban).

I'm just not seeing where the Sanderistas matter. To help Hillary win California even more?

- - - Updated - - -

Highest bracket increased from 4% to 9%. 9-4=5. 5 is 125% of 4. So it grew by 125%

Lowest increased from 16% to 20%. 20-16=4. 4 is 25% is 16. So it grew by 25%

Middle decreased from 61% to 50%. 50-61=-11. 11 is 18% of 61. So it shrank by 18%

Upper increased from 10% to 12%. 12-10=2. 2 is 20% of 10. So it grew by 20%

Not hard, man.

That's comparing 1971 to 2015. Not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about 2001->2015. The person I responded to contextualized the discussion within roughly that time frame, not 45 years ago.

And who would want that archaic 1971 blue collar economy anyway.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Bernie's campaign ended when his thugs threw a chair and sent death threats at a personal friend of the Senate Democratic Leader in his home state of Nevada. Bravo, boys.

Your desperation is sad. Video evidence shows no chair was thrown. And do you have *any* evidence that a Sanders supporter sent the death threats?

[hrugner]

The best options, IMHO, for Bernie is to create a liberal leg of the democratic party. Formalize it, they can endorse and support down ballot politicians. They would be very powerful in mid terms because of the low voter turnout and they could endorse future presidential candidates. Sort of be a voting block for the future. There is enough of them to impact the down ballots in a big way. What would have happened in this election if Bernie had started with 30%-40% support instead of with nothing? Look at what the Tea Party did in mid terms. That would give him a platform to support Clinton in the election by saying that it's for the greater good. They would be voting for their own best interests, not for Clinton.

......

I would go one further. I think that the GOP have 2 elections left where they will be competitive unless they change their course. The country demographics are changing and the youth are getting more involved and are more liberal. One thing to note, people do get more conservative with age.

I think the best option for Bernie is the Howard Dean treatment. Dean's ability to mobilize the morel liberal end of the party was put to good use as head of the DNC and is a big part of what put Obama in the white house now. Since it looks like the media is already preparing to sacrifice W/S to appease Bernie supporters, it's also a likely result.

As to the last bit, I've been told and shown enough research now that I don't think I believe this anymore. It looks much more like conservative people are simply much less likely to be politically engaged till they are older which creates the appearance that older people are more conservative. At a young age, those conservatives are independent which makes the ballooning independent voting block fairly ominous.

[Zeth Hawkins]

That's comparing 1971 to 2015. Not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about 2001->2015. The person I responded to contextualized the discussion within roughly that time frame, not 45 years ago.

And who would want that archaic 1971 blue collar economy anyway.

Cool, then let's amend it.

Highest bracket increased from 7% to 9%. 9-7=2. 2 is 29% of 7. So it grew by 29% (rounded up)

Lowest increased from 18% to 20%. 20-18=2. 2 is 11% is 18. So it grew by 11%

Middle decreased from 54% to 50%. 50-54=-4. 4 is 7% of 54. So it shrank by 7% (rounded down)

Upper increased from 11% to 12%. 12-11=1. 1 is 9% of 11. So it grew by 9%

[Skroe]

Your desperation is sad. Video evidence shows no chair was thrown. And do you have *any* evidence that a Sanders supporter sent the death threats?

Frankly? I don't care if it's true or not. And I never will. We're going to weaponize the ever living crap out of it anyway. We're going to twist it into a warhammer and bludgeon the Sanderistas with it. It doesn't matter if it happened or not. Enough people just need to think it did to destroy the left's and Sanders' name.

My side has already won the battle that matters. Now my side is going to make sure you don't stand up again.

You see, I'm not desperate. Quite the opposite, this is a tremendous opportunity.

You see, I am a moderate-conservative. My support for Hillary is a temporary truce to defeat the authoritarian, crypto-fascist, nativist, racist Trump and the socialist, duplicitous Sanders. Two extremists. Extremism has no place in the United States. My vote in this election, is to slap down two extremist movements - the authoritarian and the anti-capitalist.

If we were on a battlefield in the Middle Ages, this is the part where I'm sitting on your sides corpse, laughing about the crappy battle you fought, while planning to go burn down your village. Does that sound desperate to you?

- - - Updated - - -

Cool, then let's amend it.

Highest bracket increased from 7% to 9%. 9-7=2. 2 is 29% of 7. So it grew by 29% (rounded up)

Lowest increased from 18% to 20%. 20-18=2. 2 is 11% is 18. So it grew by 11%

Middle decreased from 54% to 50%. 50-54=-4. 4 is 7% of 54. So it shrank by 7% (rounded down)

Upper increased from 11% to 12%. 12-11=1. 1 is 9% of 11. So it grew by 9%

I don't see much in the way of cataclysmic trouble in that.

I see something in need of some modest reform and some taxation on the higher bracket.

Very far from a revolution, lol... more like modest tax reform.

I mean good golly good gosh the Middle Clash shrank by 7% in 15 years when we had the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. I'd be very interested in seeing how much of that shrinkage happened before and after Obama's tax reforms.

[hrugner]

Frankly? I don't care if it's true or not. And I never will. We're going to weaponize the ever living crap out of it anyway. We're going to twist it into a warhammer and bludgeon the Sanderistas with it. It doesn't matter if it happened or not. Enough people just need to think it did to destroy the left's and Sanders' name.

My side has already won the battle that matters. Now my side is going to make sure you don't stand up again.

You see, I'm not desperate. Quite the opposite, this is a tremendous opportunity.

You see, I am a moderate-conservative. My support for Hillary is a temporary truce to defeat the authoritarian, crypto-fascist, nativist, racist Trump and the socialist, duplicitous Sanders. Two extremists. Extremism has no place in the United States. My vote in this election, is to slap down two extremist movements - the authoritarian and the anti-capitalist.

If we were on a battlefield in the Middle Ages, this is the part where I'm sitting on your sides corpse, laughing about the crappy battle you fought, while planning to go burn down your village. Does that sound desperate to you?

- - - Updated - - -



I don't see much in the way of cataclysmic trouble in that.

I see something in need of some modest reform and some taxation on the higher bracket.

Very far from a revolution, lol... more like modest tax reform.

I mean good golly good gosh the Middle Clash shrank by 7% in 15 years when we had the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. I'd be very interested in seeing how much of that shrinkage happened before and after Obama's tax reforms.

Yes, yes, you're some foreign conservative intent on making the democratic party mad at itself. We know. Inflammatory rhetoric is much more effective on the R side of things.

[Skroe]

Yes, yes, you're some foreign conservative intent on making the democratic party mad at itself. We know. Inflammatory rhetoric is much more effective on the R side of things.

... foreign? I'm from Massa-fucking-chusetts. I don't have an accent though. Chowd_ER. The foreigner is the meddling Fin up there.

And besides, I thought Sanderistas.... weren't Democrats? So which is it?

[Dextroden]

You'd think that, wouldn't you.

Yes. I tend to think politicians that run that hard against a party stop getting invited to fundraisers and don't get much backing.

Plus, BOTH parties will be able to run smear ads on any politician caught working with him if Trump wins because of Sander's need to play spoiler.

[Yvaelle]

... foreign? I'm from Massa-fucking-chusetts. I don't have an accent though. Chowd_ER. The foreigner is the meddling Fin up there.

And besides, I thought Sanderistas.... weren't Democrats? So which is it?

We're democrats, small D - we've always been democrats. At some point the Democrats became Corporatists, which has made us outsiders in our own party.

[Skroe]

We're democrats, small D - we've always been democrats. At some point the Democrats became Corporatists, which has made us outsiders in our own party.

The Democrats are certainly not Corporatists. You Bernie folks really are fundamentalists if nothing else. Let me get this straight. The liberal party of this country, with a long and very tangible record, even within the last 20 years, of social and economic progressivism, is "Corporatist" because they don't meet your impossible standard? That's ridiculous. You don't set the standard, friend. It's above your pay grade.

What wouldn't make them Corporatists? Nationalizing the banks? Why don't you hold your breath? That hasn't been tried in a while.

[Dextroden]

We're democrats, small D - we've always been democrats. At some point the Democrats became Corporatists, which has made us outsiders in our own party.

They simply aren't Democrat enough, right? Democrat in name only?

This really is 2012 all over again.

[Skroe]

They simply aren't Democrat enough, right? Democrat in name only?

This really is 2012 all over again.

It's like so incredibly detached from reality... it's rather extraordinary.

The Tea Party tried that whole "Republican In Name Only" thing. It didn't exactly work out too well for them. Donald Trump as the nominee and not Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, represents the end of the Tea Party. It only succeeded in demolishing the Republican Party and leaving it open to the crazies who otherwise would never had had a shot.

And now some "democrats, small D" want to import that madness?

Maybe there we'll be a third party... The Sanity Party. It'll be the last safe room when the inmates run both the right and the left wings of the asylum.

[ringpriest]

The thing is, the Clinton / Establishment hold all the cards. Litterally all of them.

The Sanders campaign did not win a majority of the delegates (far from it). They did not win the popular vote. They did not win the states. They applaud hysterically undemocratic caucuses (where Sanders does well) but decry primaries where he does poorly as "rigged". They simply have no moral leg to stand on. They just want to win and don't want to lost.

The Sanders "movement" if there is such a thing, has few allies, little sustainable funds, and organization that pales in comparison to the Clinton / DNC operation.

The Sanders Insurrection, since Nevada, has given the anti-Sanders side the perfect example, the perfect weapon to use against them.

All put together, what is the Sanders group supposed to fight with? Their passion? Doesn't count for squat in the end. And Hillary probably doesn't even need the Sanderistas, especially if she finds other ways to appeal to the moderate to conservatives in swing states who are anti-Trump.

I mean once again, she just needs to win the 18 states + DC that Democrats have won handedly for the past 6 consecutive elections, plus Florida. What's more likely she finds in Florida - Sanderistas or disaffected moderated and Republicans disgusted by Trump? (for what it's worth, family connection here, my uncle, a prominent Latin American attorney, who has worked with Hillary Clinton before as Secretary of State, planned on supporting Jeb Bush, and is all in for Hillary because he is anti-Trump, but that's anectodal, but he is, very much your otherwise conservative Miami Hispanic/Cuban).

I'm just not seeing where the Sanderistas matter. To help Hillary win California even more?

To answer your last question first - why does Clinton need the Sanders supporters? First, in a best-case scenario, Sanders supporters matter down-ballot (and in the future), not that the DLC (which has basically eaten the DNC) has ever been particularly concerned about anything but the presidency (and the present); while Hillary can probably win the Electoral College with her supporters + moderates/independents/anti-Trumpers (including Republicans), many of those voters will turn right around and vote R all the rest of the way down the ballot.

So you end up with Clinton in the White House and Republican control everywhere else - Clinton will be fine with that, the establishment will be fine with it, non-insane Republicans will be fine with it... but for anyone actually on the left, or interested in change of any sort, it's a disaster (and one that is just begging for blowback down the road - think of it as filling the cracks in the party with explosives to be detonated at a future date).

Second, in less-favorable scenarios for Clinton: if Trump manages to appeal to more independents / moderate voters somehow (I'm not certain how myself - maybe via a brilliant VP pick - but I'm unwilling to write-off the possibility), then Clinton is going to need that strong anti-Trump, anti-conservative bloc, and need it badly. If she has instead alienated the traditional Democratic voters to the point where they stay home, vote 3rd party, or even vote for Trump, then she's toast.

The idea that the "Clinton / Establishment hold all the cards" is true, from the perspective of the nomination - the problem is that they are treating that a though it means the pro-Sanders left has no alternative but to vote for Clinton in the general; and that is only true to a certain extent. And, again, from the perspective of Sander's supporters, they're being so blatant about the "you have to vote for Clinton, haha" aspect of it that they're on the edge of pushing significant numbers of these voters into abandoning the party, or at least the Clinton wing of it.

Look at something like this piece from Counterpunch: "Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests: Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders Election Fraud Allegations". Regardless of its ultimate accuracy, this is the headspace that a non-zero segement of likely D voters are in - adding state convention shenanigans to it just pisses them off more. For that matter, how is a Democratic National Convention that looks like a riot going to help Clinton when compared with Trump's WWE show?

But more than the present election, this is about the future - barring a game-changer, Clinton can likely force a win in November, even with alienating the Sanders supporters; but doing so will be the end of the traditional Democratic coalition. Clinton is moving in the same direction as the Republicans, courting older voters at the cost of younger ones - that's a net losing strategy in the long term.

But I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll do it one more time and call it a night: you're right that Clinton likely won't need the Sanders voters to win, but it looks to me like she's alienating them needlessly in ways that it will be difficult for the party to recover from in the future, or for her to recover from if she suddenly finds that she does need them in November, it will be too late. (And I'd really hate to see President Trump arrive because the Democratic nominee stupidly burned the party's bridges with the left.) It might all end for the best though - if, 12 years down the road, we have a right-wing socially conservative populist party, a centrist pro-business party, and a socially and economically progressive left-wing party, I'd prefer that to our present system.

[Pterodactylus]

even with alienating the Sanders supporters

6% say they won't back Hillary Clinton.

[hrugner]

... foreign? I'm from Massa-fucking-chusetts. I don't have an accent though. Chowd_ER. The foreigner is the meddling Fin up there.

And besides, I thought Sanderistas.... weren't Democrats? So which is it?

Some yes, some no, but as to watching parties burn, I'd rather see the Democrats only burn a little.


and for some reason I thought you were Australian. Sorry about that.

- - - Updated - - -

The Democrats are certainly not Corporatists. You Bernie folks really are fundamentalists if nothing else. Let me get this straight. The liberal party of this country, with a long and very tangible record, even within the last 20 years, of social and economic progressivism, is "Corporatist" because they don't meet your impossible standard? That's ridiculous. You don't set the standard, friend. It's above your pay grade.

What wouldn't make them Corporatists? Nationalizing the banks? Why don't you hold your breath? That hasn't been tried in a while.

Some democrats are certainly corporatist, that's been a long time fissure in the party. People like Kerry, Clinton, they've always been on that side of things.

[Deleted]

6% say they won't back Hillary Clinton.

Seems real accurate.

Also, in other news:

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/s...329152/photo/1



Oh dear. Hillary, darling, that's not how Venn diagrams work.

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/hi...diagram-2016-5

[hrugner]

Some poor graphic design intern just lost their job. It's just a stupid mistake, but still.

Or only a modest fraction of those 90% of American support background checks and very few of a select 83% of gun owners are part of that 90% of Americans being either not American or in the remaining 10%.

[triplesdsu]

To answer your last question first - why does Clinton need the Sanders supporters? First, in a best-case scenario, Sanders supporters matter down-ballot (and in the future), not that the DLC (which has basically eaten the DNC) has ever been particularly concerned about anything but the presidency (and the present); while Hillary can probably win the Electoral College with her supporters + moderates/independents/anti-Trumpers (including Republicans), many of those voters will turn right around and vote R all the rest of the way down the ballot.

So you end up with Clinton in the White House and Republican control everywhere else - Clinton will be fine with that, the establishment will be fine with it, non-insane Republicans will be fine with it... but for anyone actually on the left, or interested in change of any sort, it's a disaster (and one that is just begging for blowback down the road - think of it as filling the cracks in the party with explosives to be detonated at a future date).

Second, in less-favorable scenarios for Clinton: if Trump manages to appeal to more independents / moderate voters somehow (I'm not certain how myself - maybe via a brilliant VP pick - but I'm unwilling to write-off the possibility), then Clinton is going to need that strong anti-Trump, anti-conservative bloc, and need it badly. If she has instead alienated the traditional Democratic voters to the point where they stay home, vote 3rd party, or even vote for Trump, then she's toast.

The idea that the "Clinton / Establishment hold all the cards" is true, from the perspective of the nomination - the problem is that they are treating that a though it means the pro-Sanders left has no alternative but to vote for Clinton in the general; and that is only true to a certain extent. And, again, from the perspective of Sander's supporters, they're being so blatant about the "you have to vote for Clinton, haha" aspect of it that they're on the edge of pushing significant numbers of these voters into abandoning the party, or at least the Clinton wing of it.

Look at something like this piece from Counterpunch: "Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests: Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders Election Fraud Allegations". Regardless of its ultimate accuracy, this is the headspace that a non-zero segement of likely D voters are in - adding state convention shenanigans to it just pisses them off more. For that matter, how is a Democratic National Convention that looks like a riot going to help Clinton when compared with Trump's WWE show?

But more than the present election, this is about the future - barring a game-changer, Clinton can likely force a win in November, even with alienating the Sanders supporters; but doing so will be the end of the traditional Democratic coalition. Clinton is moving in the same direction as the Republicans, courting older voters at the cost of younger ones - that's a net losing strategy in the long term.

But I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll do it one more time and call it a night: you're right that Clinton likely won't need the Sanders voters to win, but it looks to me like she's alienating them needlessly in ways that it will be difficult for the party to recover from in the future, or for her to recover from if she suddenly finds that she does need them in November, it will be too late. (And I'd really hate to see President Trump arrive because the Democratic nominee stupidly burned the party's bridges with the left.) It might all end for the best though - if, 12 years down the road, we have a right-wing socially conservative populist party, a centrist pro-business party, and a socially and economically progressive left-wing party, I'd prefer that to our present system.

Well in 4 to 8 years these sanderistas will be older, likely now have a career, family, actual life experiences and moved more to the center. When i was a stupid college kid, i totally could have seen myself supporting someone like sanders. However all these years of actual work, dealing woth people, paying taxes and growing up has changed my positions and beliefs as a result. Hopefully by then, the republicans will have abandoned some of their more achaic social positions.

This "movement" isnt going very far.

Edit: if we have a president trump, its less the DNCs fault that sanders supporters acting like children. Their candidate lost and contrary to the bs, it wasnt rigged. While im not a trump guy, if their stupidty causes that presidency, then they deserve the consequences. Sometimes thats what it takes for children to learn.

[BrerBear]

I'm a little tepid for a Bernie supporter, and I'm following all this at a remove - but from what I've been reading Nevada has indeed become a flashpoint and not for the end of support for Sanders, but rather for a break between the Sanders-supporting left and the Democratic establishment. The mainstream D narrative may be that the Sanders-supporters are out of control, but the narrative within the pro-Sanders left is that the DNC is blatantly stealing the primaries for Clinton (please note that I'm not saying they are, I'm saying that's what the Sander's supporters seem to think).

The narrative is as you say only because the Sanders campaign encourages it. They've given up trying to win on the issues, the way Sanders originally swore that he would run his campaign. So, they've pivoted instead to try to gin up conspiracies that Hillary's wins are illegitimate, which was laid out very clearly in the recent NYT interview with the Sanders staff.

And this is why opinion against Bernie is falling so rapidly. I've never seen such a shift against Sanders in the last year as I have in the last week. His inability to show leadership over Nevada, even going so far as to repeat the lies to rile up his supporters, is causing a giant backlash the likes of which I have not seen before. It's been crazy to watch.

- - - Updated - - -

Well in 4 to 8 years these sanderistas will be older, likely now have a career, family, actual life experiences and moved more to the center. When i was a stupid college kid, i totally could have seen myself supporting someone like sanders. However all these years of actual work, dealing woth people, paying taxes and growing up has changed my positions and beliefs as a result. Hopefully by then, the republicans will have abandoned some of their more achaic social positions.

This "movement" isnt going very far.

Edit: if we have a president trump, its less the DNCs fault that sanders supporters acting like children. Their candidate lost and contrary to the bs, it wasnt rigged. While im not a trump guy, if their stupidty causes that presidency, then they deserve the consequences. Sometimes thats what it takes for children to learn.

So true about the movement growing up. It always does, other than a few fringers that keep showing up to these rallies in their 50s and 60s. I'm embarrassed of the views I had 20 years ago, so naive.