Jump to content

DID YOU FEEL THE BERN?


Recommended Posts

You keep saying there was a path for Sanders, well let's see it. What states on Super Tuesday do you actually think he had a chance to flip? Clinton increased her lead to about 200 delegates after Super Tuesday, so show me which ones Sanders could've won. MA? OK, I'll give you MA. Let's say he gets a narrow win there- he gets one pledged delegate over Clinton and maybe some of MA's unpledged. That's not 200 yet. So where else? He's losing every other state by at least 30 points, so I'm eager to hear what you got.

 

You don't seem to be understanding the simple math involved. I'm not saying that Sanders was ever going to win more than maybe 6 or 7 additional states even with a lot of momentum. I'm saying that it doesn't matter. The Democrats select delegates based on proportionality. The margins are what matter, not the top line result.

 

According to RCP, there have been 2,963 delegates awarded and Clinton is ahead by a solid 327. Which means Sanders essentially would need to up his delegate totals by only 5.6% to get the 163 delegates needed to overtake her. That is completely doable with Sanders winning only 5 additional states (Iowa, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Missouri).

 

Sanders didn't need to win S. Carolina. He just needed to cut the lead from 47 to 36 to gain 4 delegates. Cut Clinton's lead in Texas from from 32 to 21 to gain 13 delegates. Shrink Clinton's Florida victory from 21 to 10 to gain 12 delegates. Keep doing that in every race so far (not just Super Tuesday) and Sanders isn't falling behind at all. He's winning, or at least tied.

 

You are focused like a laser on a few demographics like the Republican establishment only looks at the Latino vote (and S. Carolina for reasons I can't explain). This makes you believe that a Sanders victory is impossible. But it flat out ignores just how close then numbers truly are and how a slightest additional shift in Clinton voters to Sanders and/or increased excitement from Sanders' base would have made all the difference.

 

Sure a lot of things fell Sanders' way to get him as close as he is. But Clinton had the great fortune of the Sanders Snowball coming up just shy of pulling ahead of her due to a small win in Iowa, Republican states moving up to make the SEC primary (her strongest states came early), and Trump keeping Sanders' momentum from being the big news story (among other little pieces of luck).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dude poe, what in the world are you talking about? Sanders' fate was sealed on Feb 27, when Clinton decisively won SC by 47 points. Until then, it wasn't entirely clear what would happen, given the c

I'm not moving the goalposts poe. My position has always been that Sanders never had a chance. He did not have a path to victory; let me be clear here, in no world (absent some crazy unpredictable b

I'm still baffled by this idea that somebody with such a minimal political track record, other than her last last name and what that has caused to get handed to her thus far, gets the support she does

While it's going to take a miracle for Sanders to win the Democratic nomination...

 

For the first time since October, Trump has inched ahead of Clinton in a legit poll.

 

Meanwhile, I can't remember a single poll where Sanders doesn't beat Trump by double digits.

 

Now, I realize that polls aren't terribly meaningful this far out. And I know that for both Trump and Clinton, the negatives have all been exposed and been out there for a long time, while Sanders has the advantage of being something of an unknown commodity. But still, if you are a Democrat, the numbers have to be chilling.

 

Even if Sanders is not a "viable" candidate, at least a large swath of the U.S. population doesn't already have a visceral hated of him that won't be going away any time soon, and on top of that, he has outsider credit like Trump -- good of time as ever to have it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Polls say Bernie is More Electable than Hillary. Don't Believe Them."

 

"It’s true that Sanders does better than Clinton in hypothetical matchups against the Republicans. Currently, Sanders outperforms Clinton by more than seven percentage points against Trump, and by nearly nine points against Ted Cruz. But that’s not because Sanders is the stronger nominee. It’s because Republicans haven’t yet trashed him the way they’ve trashed Clinton. Once they do, his advantage over her would disappear."

 

Interesting read. Make of it what you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've heard that analysis and think there are valid points there. Clinton herself made that exact same argument at least twice during her debates. That's why I went out of my way to say "It's not really that meaningful."

 

Still, I've already seen a few people freak out over that Rasmussen poll. I think they know in their bones that this is a baaaaaaaad year to be "establishment," and as bad as Trump appears to be now, anybody who says they are sure he's going down in flames and taking all the down ballot Republicans with him is offering prayer in lieu of analysis. The only things I'm sure of are that:

 

Incumbents/"establishment" politicians are not popular right now

Trump and Clinton are not popular with a lot of people right now

 

I personally suspect that Trump's supporters are a lot more fired up than Clinton's, which could be dangerous (assuming they don't spend election day passed out on moonshine in their trailer after a Maury paternity test marathon)... I also suspect that Trump has a higher ceiling than predicted (i.e. people are more willing to change their minds about him than Clinton), which is worrisome.

 

I'm not saying Sanders would mop the floor with Trump, but he certainly has the advantage of fewer fixed negatives, and unlike Clinton, he can stand toe-to-toe with Trump on issues that seem to be resonating this year:

  • "You can trust me, I'm an outsider!"
  • "I'm sick of Middle East adventurism, aren't you?"
  • "TPP Sucks!"
  • "OMG I just had an idea: let's bring back manufacturing jobs!"

Meanwhile, Clinton is pushing gun control in order to move to the left of Sanders and finally finish him off. WTF. There are a lot of Democrats who love their party except for that whole "pesky 2nd Amendment" attitude. Good lord. People are feeling insecure about their economic and personal safety, and especially distrustful of their government right now, and she starts preaching gun control?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders has always been that old cranky grandpa and I'm amazed he is still running at his age. When you listen to some of his speeches later in the day he is really hoarse. I think Hillary would be more palatable if you'd just take name recognition away from her and got her to be more - uhm - interesting? in her speeches. She's got start showing us the way her plan kind of fits and works. Ender touched on this in a much earlier post and I still think what he said is accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally suspect that Trump's supporters are a lot more fired up than Clinton's, which could be dangerous (assuming they don't spend election day passed out on moonshine in their trailer after a Maury paternity test marathon)...

Your stereotype is at least 4 months out of date.

 

Trump won Fairfield County CT by 22 points, Westchester County NY by 28 points, Montgomery County PA by 19 points, etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, I know. I saw that "35% ceiling" break in NY, and shatter on the 26th. But I like Maury references and unfair generalizations :)

 

Serious question: I wonder how many of those Fairfielders are Secret Trumpers?

 

You seem to be fine admitting it. But the only two Trump supporters I know IRL have BOTH made it abundantly clear they are less pro-Trump than anti-Cruz (one liked Rubio at first, I can't remember the other), and said they're being pretty hush-hush about it, like it's some kind of dirty secret.

 

I have zero doubt there is a reverse Bradley Effect going on here, my only question is to what extent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, I know. I saw that "35% ceiling" break in NY, and shatter on the 26th. But I like Maury references and unfair generalizations :)

 

Serious question: I wonder how many of those Fairfielders are Secret Trumpers?

 

You seem to be fine admitting it. But the only two Trump supporters I know IRL have BOTH made it abundantly clear they are less pro-Trump than anti-Cruz (one liked Rubio at first, I can't remember the other), and said they're being pretty hush-hush about it, like it's some kind of dirty secret.

 

I have zero doubt there is a reverse Bradley Effect going on here, my only question is to what extent?

A fair number I expect, probably more than people realize. That being said, there's no getting around that he's highly unpopular among a significant chunk of people as well. I suspect it balances out in the end. With the amount of polarization today, it's hard to see how we get a landslide in either direction.

 

As far as your generalization goes, well thanks for taking my sharpshooting with a laugh; truth be told, it certainly has a kernel of truth to it. I was reading an interesting article the other day (lost the link unfortunately) that indicated the highest demographic factor correlating with Trump support was church attendance. Regular once-a-week goers were like 90% Cruz or something ridiculous like that.

 

I suspect that Trump's base is somewhat parabola shaped- a large amount of support on the lower end of the income bracket, and a chunk on the upper end. His weakest group is probably the larger middle- which, when you think about it, is the group most likely to be those regular church-goers, movement conservatives, people that are super active in local GOP politics, and the like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie doing pretty good in early Indiana returns (tied with 19% in; Gary hasn't come in yet) -- his supporters obviously haven't given up.

 

He's talking about income inequality and the "rigged economy" and just knocking it out of the park ("Why do taxpayers have to subsidize the employees of the Walton family?").

 

Again, I think he'd be a disastrous president, and think he panders and/or oversimplifies certain issues where he really should know better, but I am so glad he is able to articulate this stuff so damn well while cameras are rolling.

 

BOOM!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you are in town on bad circumstances. Best wishes and all that mushy stuff!

 

You are not imagining it.. the Bernie bumper stickers, signs, T-shirts, ear rings, etc. are everywhere. No exaggeration: in the last few weeks, I have literally not seen anything for any other candidate!

 

As you may have guessed I'm something of a contrarian, so this constant Bernage should turn me off, but I do genuinely appreciate the guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still baffled by this idea that somebody with such a minimal political track record, other than her last last name and what that has caused to get handed to her thus far, gets the support she does. Then you factor in her scandal. After that, Benghazi. Then you can even factor in her being fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee for unethical behavior and lying to her superiors. What the hell, aside from shady dealings, has this old hag ever accomplished? Besides the fact that she possesses a vagina and switches positions more than the entire roster over at Brazzers.

You're baffled by her minimal political track record...um, did you see Obama's political experience before he became President?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you are in town on bad circumstances. Best wishes and all that mushy stuff!

 

You are not imagining it.. the Bernie bumper stickers, signs, T-shirts, ear rings, etc. are everywhere. No exaggeration: in the last few weeks, I have literally not seen anything for any other candidate!

 

As you may have guessed I'm something of a contrarian, so this constant Bernage should turn me off, but I do genuinely appreciate the guy.

I won't lie, every test I've taken to determine ones candidate I get Bernie. But I've never hid the fact I am a Star Trek utopist.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Affordable Healthcare Act a final cut of her health care deal she was trying to promote during Bill's tenure as president? Everyone's shady in government so meh. Benghazi is a dead horse and the email thing is just stupid political play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Affordable Healthcare Act a final cut of her health care deal she was trying to promote during Bill's tenure as president? Everyone's shady in government so meh. Benghazi is a dead horse and the email thing is just stupid political play.

Eh, I don't think so.

 

IIRC, Hillarycare was universal. I think primarily tied to employment? Too tired to research it, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but anyways I think Obamacare was actually less sweeping.

 

Opposition from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, business owners, conservatives, libertarians, and liberals who wanted their own "better" plans implemented pretty much guaranteed her plans would never get off the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was too tired to look into it more or fact check. She's been in the mix for a while so if anything she's got experience more so than Trump as she was helping Bill Clinton's administration work through the healthcare that they were pushing back when Bill was president. I think you're right - if anything the ACA is more a version of MA insurance thing. Her recent issues, that is the email scandal, have more to do with Obama's admin and promises made concerning what would happen when she became Secretary of State and how they managed that. Hillary had set ideas and the Obama administration was not exactly friendly or helpful as she wanted to bring in some people who they outright said no to. To be honest if I hear Benghazi one more time I might punch Cruz while he's down and out for the sake of I am simply just frreakin' tired of hearing about Benghazi endlessly from some factions. Could Hillary of done things differently about those emails, well, sure, but now it's too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is that both Obama and Clinton tried to reform health care, and that, interestingly, is when the media and Washington establishments turned on them. Slick Willie faced the republican revolution, and Obama the Tea Party. The results in the congressional mid terms of their first terms were quite comparable.

 

Nothing brings out the astroturf like talk of health care reform.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Affordable Healthcare Act a final cut of her health care deal she was trying to promote during Bill's tenure as president? Everyone's shady in government so meh. Benghazi is a dead horse and the email thing is just stupid political play.

No. The opposite actually.

 

Hillarycare was universal coverage based on an employer mandate.

 

Obamacare is basically Romneycare from 2006 in MA; which in turn is just a version of what people refer to as the "Bob Dole" or "Gingrich" plan from 1993 (named as such since both supported it, although it was actually introduced by John Chafee of RI), which was the GOP alternative to Hillarycare.

 

That plan had its roots in a 1989 essay called "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," which was published by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank in DC) and where the idea was first born. That's where Obamacare (e.g. individual mandate, etc) ultimately originated from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Isn't the Affordable Healthcare Act a final cut of her health care deal she was trying to promote during Bill's tenure as president? Everyone's shady in government so meh. Benghazi is a dead horse and the email thing is just stupid political play.

No. The opposite actually.

 

Hillarycare was universal coverage based on an employer mandate.

 

Obamacare is basically Romneycare from 2006 in MA; which in turn is just a version of what people refer to as the "Bob Dole" or "Gingrich" plan from 1993 (named as such since both supported it, although it was actually introduced by John Chafee of RI), which was the GOP alternative to Hillarycare.

 

That plan had its roots in a 1989 essay called "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," which was published by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank in DC) and where the idea was first born. That's where Obamacare (e.g. individual mandate, etc) ultimately originated from.

 

In other words, since it has its beginnings with the GOP, republican rhetoric to repeal Obamacare are just lies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, since it has its beginnings with the GOP, republican rhetoric to repeal Obamacare are just lies?

Two things to consider:

 

1) A lot of today's Republicans at least give lip service to the no federal government program can end well attitude, but that has not always been the case. I mean, Nixon used the bully pulpit to insist on federal and state legislation that would get all Americans health coverage in 1974 -- yes Nineteen Seventy-Four -- and it also included mental health and addiction treatment, because he understood the short term economic costs were less than long-term societal cost.

 

He sold it as a means of providing "equal opportunity to all Americans, regardless of economic status, race, gender, etc.," rather than the "Goddamn you free health care is a RIGHT!" terms you hear today, but still a big freakin' undertaking... the kind of thing that would leave your jaw on the floor if you heard it from, say, Paul Ryan.

 

2) Republicans tend to be a lot more tolerant of state-level programs (that "laboratory of democracy" jazz); they might not like a certain state program, but it's not gonna cause them to run around with their hair on fire, repeating passages from Green Eggs and Ham for hours on end.

 

So it depends on the Republican you are listening to. Chances are it's just opportunistic rhetoric, though :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also add that it's just simple political opportunism.

 

Let's say McCain won in 08 and he decided to push health care reform- the likely proposal would've been similar to Obamacare, since after all, it was originally a Republican idea. The Democrat response would've been akin to- it's a big-pharma handout, free market run amok, Hitler, poor people dying, etc etc. Notwithstanding that in real life Dems are defending it as if it was a great liberal victory. Their counter-offer probably would've been a public option.

 

Similarly, if Obama had been less naive, had some balls and decided to actually push a liberal agenda (single payer, or even just public option), you'd see Republicans offering the Bob Dole/Romney plan as the free market solution to socialized health care, etc., claiming that an individual mandate was a centrist/privatized alternative to outright government run health care and so on.

 

It's all just political opportunism Chalup. Not sure why you think only the GOP does this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

It's all just political opportunism Chalup. Not sure why you think only the GOP does this.

I don't doubt that for a second, and I am positive both engage in the same type of demagoguery.

 

But, seriously, I was asking a legit question in this case, though. Of course I knew of Romneycare, and Hillarycare, but I hadn't heard of the essay "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," nor Nixon's insistence on state or federal health coverage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.