Bernie Lives! A thread for those who never tire of Sanders.

[Teague]

So your point is that there's no evidence so why even make a thread about it?

You're free to draw whatever conclusions you like from my comments and if you want to make-believe that I'm insinuating something that I haven't done, you're free to do that as well. I should only caution that it makes your comments look screamingly stupid to anyone with half a brain who can spot such fabrications.

As for the thread on Bernie, the purpose of the thread is to provide a home for all those who seem unable to hold a discussion about a.n.other political topic, without derailing it into a discussion about Bernie. When those people feel the urge to Bernie rising, they can come here and get it out of their system.

And here, in this thread, we're free to speculate, extrapolate, pontificate and dream, about what a Sanders victory might have entailed in terms of Presidential policy. Of course, with the GOP dominating congress and senate, a Sanders Presidency would've looked like a more frustrating mess than the Obama Presidency for getting things done. Whether this would have been more or less a frustrating mess than a Hilary Presidency, again we are free to speculate on and if we are inclined to do so, we can do it here.

But, to get back to the crux of the matter, my original point back in the derail in the other thread which lead to this thread, is that you cannot claim any certainty in respect to events that have not occurred.

Ok well I made my case, quite well I think other people will have to draw their own conclusions I haven't got anything more to add to it.

I already agreed I can't be certain and no I can't on an event that never happened but as I said in rebuttal to that, I'm going by the data we have, more of which I've provided since then that supports a Sanders win I think more than the analysis in your OP (the first two at least) where I think they're flat out wrong.

[Sendraks]

where I think they're flat out wrong.

Well you "think" that but, you can't actually provide anything to support me being flat out wrong. I've no reason to believe, based on the available evidence, that Bernie would have won the Presidency.

There's grounds for thinking he "could" have won, largely by dint of the fact that the possibility of winning the Presidency is there for the nominees of the two parties. But, that is about as far as I'm prepared to go. He could have lost as well and we could have an equally thrilling discussion about whether his loss would have been larger or smaller than Hilary's.

You're a long way from demonstrating me to be flat out wrong, regardless of what you "think."

[Teague]

I note that Clinton secured more votes in the primaries than Trump did as well.

433,739
Hillary Clinton

Yep and Cruz beat Clinton by

533,079
Ted Cruz

100k more.

So Trump was the least popular but then democrats aren't the only voters when it comes to an election and we all know Sanders crushed with independents.

Let's also remember that both Trump and Clinton had wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more media coverage than Sanders. Tom Frank, auther of a few books (lol) counted up the articles on Sanders 5/1 - 5 negative pieces to one positive piece and so with hardly any media and mostly negative media, he kicked everyone's ass in Wisconsin. The least known guy in the race owned the State.

[Sendraks]

Indeed. Sanders kicked ass in Wisconsin. If the Presidential election was decided entirely by the voters of Wisconsin and if we could be confident that they'd vote exactly the same way in the Presidential election as they did in the primaries, then Sanders looks like a shoe in for the post of Pres.

[Thommo]

I was making a point that IF you take away CA, the other 49 states don't support Clinton and the electoral college was put in place to give all states a reperesentative say.

Yes, if you ignore a quarter of Clinton's electoral college votes then of what's left Trump is marginally more popular in the popular vote. However, (i) This isn't a "blasting" as you described it (ii) There's no reason whatsoever to do that. After all, if you ignore 25% of the people in the world, two thirds of what's left are men (iii) It's not appropriate to complain about people ignoring data, right up to the point of calling them "morons" and then in your very next breath ignore data to make a point.

The popular vote isn't in place because the US is a collection of states Take away CA if we were using the popular vote, Trump wins. Put CA back, Clinton wins - the presidency is now won by one battleground state that tyipcally votes blue all the time. That's the point I was making and I didn't leave any data out, I included it. Are you blind? Do you NOT see the links I provided?

No, I'm not blind. I just literally understand what "take California out" means. Don't you? It means remove it from the analysis - do the analysis excluding this information - ignore it.

This is not a valid means of analysis, it doesn't tell us whether or why or by how much Bernie Sanders would win. It's data manipulation, of the kind you were calling people "morons" for making.

FFS why do I even bother? Then you ramble on about where I live like that makes a difference.

Well, that was my point. I don't know why you are so bothered either. And seriously, you write hundreds of words at a time and think 15 is rambling?

Do you even have ANYTHING to come back on why Sanders wouldn't have won or do you want to spend the next 10 pages arguing if I left out CA on purpose or not and accuse me of something I didn't do?

Why are you attributing this position to me? I included several fairly good analyses in the opening post addressing the points on both sides. I largely agree with the comments made in the summaries I quoted - that it is safe to say Bernie Sanders could have won, but it is more difficult to say for certain whether he would have won. I think he may very well have done. I am however, opposed to false certainty, or using that false certainty as a hobby horse. What's done is done.

In your weird little world, when someone provides the data then says, "But if I remove that data point.,.,..." I'm doing the same as leaving out swathes of data to make a stupid case for Sanders not winning the presidency?

No, if you complain about leaving out data (you didn't specify how much or by whom by the way) and then do it, then you're exercising hypocrisy. California is 10% of the electoral college and 10% of the votes cast. This is literally leaving out swathes of data to make a stupid case.

The people you were criticising (and you only named Nate Silver) weren't even excluding that much.

I didn't leave out data I took it out and said I was doing so!

Yes quite. You didn't leave it out, you took it out.

It's right there! Why would I do that if I wanted to then present an argument that I'm not making but you think I am that I'm taking the data out to show Trump won or whatever it is your saying.

I'm saying that there's no difference between leaving it out and taking it out. Either way you shouldn't be.

I live in the UK which I thought was blatantly obvious by now.

Yes, it is. That's why I said so, albeit I didn't spell out that I understand which country the Union Flag represents.

Anyway, what I am concerned with is the quality of reasoning shared, the truthfulness of the facts asserted and the strength of the conclusions held. This is not pro Trump, it's not anti Bernie Sanders. It is not saying Bernie Sanders could not have won. He might well have done.

This doesn't excuse double standards or bad arguments though. We should not fall into the trap of replacing reason with invective.

[Teague]

Changing tack a little here....

Independent Voters Are Pissed They Can't Vote for Trump or Sanders in New York

Five days away from the New York primary, independent voters protested the state's closed primary process, which they say will exclude nearly 3 million residents from voting on April 19 — a particularly damaging prospect for non-establishment candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Dozens of demonstrators, who support Sanders, gathered on the steps of New York's City Hall on Thursday, calling on lawmakers to open up New York's primary election process, which would allow any registered voter regardless of their political affiliation to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Organizers of the rally, led by nonpartisan groups IndependentVoting.org, the New York City Independence Clubs, and Open Primaries, blasted the state's closed primary as "undemocratic," noting that the voters most disenfranchised by this process are young people and minorities. Some 37 percent of New Yorkers under 30 identify as independent, while 15 percent of African American voters and 22 percent of Latino voters statewide are also unaffiliated with any major party, according to an analysis of voter data compiled by collection firm Prime New York.

"This is a crucial issue of our time," said Jackie Salit, president of IndependentVoting.org, which advocates for open primaries, nonpartisan redistricting, and independent election supervision. "No one should be forced to join a political party as a condition for voting that is un-American, that is undemocratic."

https://news.vice.com/article/independe ... n-new-york

Take a look here
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... imaries/NY

Look how the demographics break down. Clinton won NY by old people 1 million votes to 700,000

Oh I wonder how many votes from all those independents he would have got. The ones that couldn't vote - all 3 million of them.

Sanders get 53% of the young voters up to 44 years of age. Clinton gets 33% so let us assume all of them wanted to vote Sanders/Clinton and out of those, independents went for Sanders more by as much as over 70% in the primaries

https://usuncut.com/politics/independent-voters-bernie/

70% of 3 million is 2.1 million + 700,000 = 2.8 million votes.

30% of 3 million is 900,000 + 1 million is 1.9 million votes - Bernie wins New york.

If we put Sanders at 60% of the vote it's 1.8 million + 700,000 = 2.5 million

Clinton gets 40% at 800,000 she's at 1.8 million - Sanders wins

if we put Sanders at 51% he gets 1.53 million votes + 700,00 = 2.23 million

Clinton at 49% gets 1.47 million + 1 Million = 2.47 Million and she just scrapes in a victory.

at 55% they would have tied except I rounded down, Sanders wins with 10 thousand votes.

Who thinks Sanders would have got only 55% of independents. Sanders wins New York and then after that what do you think would have happened in the primaries. He'd won the last 9 states was it before then? That would have been huge momentum but c est la vie.

So to conclude, this isn't definitive data by any means but it still shows how Sanders could have easily won New York though there was something I didn't account for.

Clinton getting so many votes. Everyone knew she was running for president so were these 3 million just wanting to sign up to vote for Sanders/Trump? If not, why didn't they register before?

I also hear the DNC deliberately chose the voting order of states to give Clinton the biggest advantage with early voting (amongst other things they did).

Trump in NY only got 524,000 votes. In fact, between all republicans they collectively failed to beat Clinton.

So far we have Sanders winning in the General California, New York and Wisconsin.

edit

[Teague]

I was making a point that IF you take away CA, the other 49 states don't support Clinton and the electoral college was put in place to give all states a reperesentative say.

Yes, if you ignore a quarter of Clinton's electoral college votes then of what's left Trump is marginally more popular in the popular vote. However, (i) This isn't a "blasting" as you described it (ii) There's no reason whatsoever to do that. After all, if you ignore 25% of the people in the world, two thirds of what's left are men (iii) It's not appropriate to complain about people ignoring data, right up to the point of calling them "morons" and then in your very next breath ignore data to make a point.

The popular vote isn't in place because the US is a collection of states Take away CA if we were using the popular vote, Trump wins. Put CA back, Clinton wins - the presidency is now won by one battleground state that tyipcally votes blue all the time. That's the point I was making and I didn't leave any data out, I included it. Are you blind? Do you NOT see the links I provided?

No, I'm not blind. I just literally understand what "take California out" means. Don't you? It means remove it from the analysis - do the analysis excluding this information - ignore it.

This is not a valid means of analysis, it doesn't tell us whether or why or by how much Bernie Sanders would win. It's data manipulation, of the kind you were calling people "morons" for making.

FFS why do I even bother? Then you ramble on about where I live like that makes a difference.

Well, that was my point. I don't know why you are so bothered either. And seriously, you write hundreds of words at a time and think 15 is rambling?

Do you even have ANYTHING to come back on why Sanders wouldn't have won or do you want to spend the next 10 pages arguing if I left out CA on purpose or not and accuse me of something I didn't do?

Why are you attributing this position to me? I included several fairly good analyses in the opening post addressing the points on both sides. I largely agree with the comments made in the summaries I quoted - that it is safe to say Bernie Sanders could have won, but it is more difficult to say for certain whether he would have won. I think he may very well have done. I am however, opposed to false certainty, or using that false certainty as a hobby horse. What's done is done.

In your weird little world, when someone provides the data then says, "But if I remove that data point.,.,..." I'm doing the same as leaving out swathes of data to make a stupid case for Sanders not winning the presidency?

No, if you complain about leaving out data (you didn't specify how much or by whom by the way) and then do it, then you're exercising hypocrisy. California is 10% of the electoral college and 10% of the votes cast. This is literally leaving out swathes of data to make a stupid case.

The people you were criticising (and you only named Nate Silver) weren't even excluding that much.

I didn't leave out data I took it out and said I was doing so!

Yes quite. You didn't leave it out, you took it out.

It's right there! Why would I do that if I wanted to then present an argument that I'm not making but you think I am that I'm taking the data out to show Trump won or whatever it is your saying.

I'm saying that there's no difference between leaving it out and taking it out. Either way you shouldn't be.

I live in the UK which I thought was blatantly obvious by now.

Yes, it is. That's why I said so, albeit I didn't spell out that I understand which country the Union Flag represents.

Anyway, what I am concerned with is the quality of reasoning shared, the truthfulness of the facts asserted and the strength of the conclusions held. This is not pro Trump, it's not anti Bernie Sanders. It is not saying Bernie Sanders could not have won. He might well have done.

This doesn't excuse double standards or bad arguments though. We should not fall into the trap of replacing reason with invective.

OK, so California speaks for the rest of America does it? That was the point I was making. You take out CA and suddenly her popular vote is eradicated and trump beats her by 500,000 popular votes. So as long as the propoganda of California doesn't spread to the rest of the states, we can expect elections to go back and forth between gop/dems. If it was down to the popular vote, CA suddenly becomes practically the only battleground state which isn't representative of America (any Americans want to step in here and clarify that would help).

If CA is all left leaning by a long shot and are always going to vote democrats (not that I'm saying that's wrong, I think that should be the way it goes) then the popular vote will always go to the democrats! It becomes meaningless when you're looking at it at a state level. All you have to do is excite the voters to show up (which they didn't this election btw because they weren't excited).

Given the above, I reckon Sanders would have won the popular vote by at least 14 million by now

[Willie71]

It's astonishing to me that the same people who predicted Clinton couldn't lose to trump, some predicting a landslide are so sure Sanders didn't have significant advantages over Clinton as a candidate. The DNC admitted to rigging the process ffs!!! There's no evidence Clinton won fair and square in the primaries, and it seems everyone ignored the effect of crosscheck in the federal election. Crosscheck targeted democrats, with less influence over independents, Sanders strong suit.

Sanders didn't have any major scandals. Clinton was riddled with them.

Sanders didn't take money from big donors, Clinton embraced big donors.

Sanders was seen as a nobody by the republicans. Clinton was the target of decades of slander at the hands of republicans.

Sanders ran a populist campaign, Clinton ran a pro business/Wall Street campaign.

It doesn't take a genius to see who is easier to attack, or who energized the voters.

No one can say anything for certain, but to Claim Sanders, or almost any candidate other than Clinton would be at a significant advantage over what was propped up is denying reality. Sanders might have made mistakes, but he certainly had more breathing room than Clinton to recover from mistakes.

Of they might call him a socialist? Really, after 8 years of hearing about the Kenyan Muslim Black Marxist with the middle name Hussein, who already won two presidencies I'm not convinced that would have stuck. It would play well with the most entrenched republican base, but moderates and everyone else, not so much.

[Willie71]

Where's the data that shows Sander's supporters would have been additive to the support Hilary had, giving Sanders such an overwhelmingly majority that he'd have secured the Presidency?

Sure, Bernie mobilised segments of the electorate that were previously apathetic but, there's no data to say he'd have secured all those Hilary supporters for an election campaign.

Where's the evidence that there were that many Sanders supporters (fires up their asses or no) to secure an election victory over Trump?

You would have to provide evidence that there was an anybody but sanders movement, something both Clinton and Trump experienced. Where is the evidence that Clinton supporters would sit out the election, or vote for Trump in protest? Didn't happen when Obama beat her, in any significant number. What was so appalling about Sanders platform that people would reject his policies? I heard a lot of "it's a nice idea, but it's not realistic." Rather than "this is no longer acceptable to let people have a say in elections and policies rather than corporations." It doesn't add up, logically.

[Thommo]

Sanders get 53% of the young voters up to 44 years of age. Clinton gets 33% so let us assume all of them wanted to vote Sanders/Clinton and out of those, independents went for Sanders more by as much as over 70% in the primaries

Why would people assume this? Voter turnout amongst the 5.2 million democratic registered voters was around 1.7m or a shade under 33%. Why would the turnout amongst the 3 million unregistered voters be 100%?

This is wishful thinking, not analysis.

[Thommo]

OK, so California speaks for the rest of America does it?

No. Nobody is saying that. What's being said is that 100% of America speaks quite well for 100% of America.

Taking the 10% of that that least reflects what you want to say and discarding it and drawing conclusions from the remaining 90% is not speaking for America, it's introducing a bias for no good reason whatsoever.

That was the point I was making. You take out CA and suddenly her popular vote is eradicated and trump beats her by 500,000 popular votes.

And if you instead take out 55 electoral college votes at the other extreme of the spectrum (which would be West Virginia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Kentucky, Alabama, South Dakota, Tennessee and Arkansas - yes California is that big and has that many voters and electoral college seats) then you'd find that Clinton had won be even more than 3million!!!

It just wouldn't mean anything. It's propaganda. Data manipulation.

[Teague]

I was using the 3 million to base my figures off. All 3 million wouldn't be voting for just Sanders/Clinton either, obviously, I used the number to highlight how Sanders could have won and if 3 million independents are pissed they can't vote - why the fuck wouldn't they vote if they could register??? How does that make sense!

[Thommo]

It's astonishing to me that the same people who predicted Clinton couldn't lose to trump, some predicting a landslide are so sure Sanders didn't have significant advantages over Clinton as a candidate.

Who?

[Teague]

OK, so California speaks for the rest of America does it?

No. Nobody is saying that. What's being said is that 100% of America speaks quite well for 100% of America.

Taking the 10% of that that least reflects what you want to say and discarding it and drawing conclusions from the remaining 90% is not speaking for America, it's introducing a bias for no good reason whatsoever.

That was the point I was making. You take out CA and suddenly her popular vote is eradicated and trump beats her by 500,000 popular votes.

And if you instead take out 55 electoral college votes at the other extreme of the spectrum (which would be West Virginia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Kentucky, Alabama, South Dakota, Tennessee and Arkansas - yes California is that big and has that many voters and electoral college seats) then you'd find that Clinton had won be even more than 3million!!!

It just wouldn't mean anything. It's propaganda. Data manipulation.

WTF

I'm saying that CA has a far more disproportional vote if it comes to a popular vote. Just tying up CA, FL and NY deals you 80,000,000 population in just 3 states.

Yes, if you had to take out one 5th of the states rather than one 10th of the states, it works out that way.

[Teague]

It's astonishing to me that the same people who predicted Clinton couldn't lose to trump, some predicting a landslide are so sure Sanders didn't have significant advantages over Clinton as a candidate. The DNC admitted to rigging the process ffs!!! There's no evidence Clinton won fair and square in the primaries, and it seems everyone ignored the effect of crosscheck in the federal election. Crosscheck targeted democrats, with less influence over independents, Sanders strong suit.

Sanders didn't have any major scandals. Clinton was riddled with them.

Sanders didn't take money from big donors, Clinton embraced big donors.

Sanders was seen as a nobody by the republicans. Clinton was the target of decades of slander at the hands of republicans.

Sanders ran a populist campaign, Clinton ran a pro business/Wall Street campaign.

It doesn't take a genius to see who is easier to attack, or who energized the voters.

No one can say anything for certain, but to Claim Sanders, or almost any candidate other than Clinton would be at a significant advantage over what was propped up is denying reality. Sanders might have made mistakes, but he certainly had more breathing room than Clinton to recover from mistakes.

Of they might call him a socialist? Really, after 8 years of hearing about the Kenyan Muslim Black Marxist with the middle name Hussein, who already won two presidencies I'm not convinced that would have stuck. It would play well with the most entrenched republican base, but moderates and everyone else, not so much.

Yes the excuses are hilarious though I suspect the people writing those articles also have to try and save face and convince themselves no way Sanders would win. Sorry, in this thread I've provided a fuck ton of data and argument to call bullshit on that.

[Thommo]

I was using the 3 million to base my figures off. All 3 million wouldn't be voting for just Sanders/Clinton either, obviously, I used the number to highlight how Sanders could have won and if 3 million independents are pissed they can't vote - why the fuck wouldn't they vote if they could register??? How does that make sense!

The same way that two thirds of those who could vote did not vote. Bear in mind that of those 3 million, the overwhelming majority had years and years when they could have registered if they wanted to.

If you run the numbers again and assume that of the 3 million who couldn't register last minute, that half had instead registered Democrat and half Republican (which, as with your assumption that they would all register Democrat is dubious at best), then you further assume that of those who registered Democrat 33% voted (since 33% of those actually registered did vote, again dubious, just as your assumption that 100% of them would vote was), then you further assume that 70% of those votes went to Bernie and 30% to Clinton (again, dubious, this is just your assumption repeated). Then what happens?

3,000,000 x 0.5 x 0.33 = 500,000 extra votes. 350,000 for Bernie and 150,000 for Hillary.

Add that to the original totals you gave: 700,000 + 350,000 = 1,050,000 votes for Bernie, 1,000,000 + 150,000 = 1,150,000 votes for Hillary.

Hey, look at that! Hillary wins!

What have we proved? Not much other than that you need to be far more careful with what assumptions you pick (To be 100% clear I am not claiming that these assumptions are not dubious, just as yours were. I am not claiming I know what would have happened).

[Thommo]

OK, so California speaks for the rest of America does it?

No. Nobody is saying that. What's being said is that 100% of America speaks quite well for 100% of America.

Taking the 10% of that that least reflects what you want to say and discarding it and drawing conclusions from the remaining 90% is not speaking for America, it's introducing a bias for no good reason whatsoever.

That was the point I was making. You take out CA and suddenly her popular vote is eradicated and trump beats her by 500,000 popular votes.

And if you instead take out 55 electoral college votes at the other extreme of the spectrum (which would be West Virginia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Kentucky, Alabama, South Dakota, Tennessee and Arkansas - yes California is that big and has that many voters and electoral college seats) then you'd find that Clinton had won be even more than 3million!!!

It just wouldn't mean anything. It's propaganda. Data manipulation.

WTF

I'm saying that CA has a far more disproportional vote if it comes to a popular vote. Just tying up CA, FL and NY deals you 80,000,000 population in just 3 states.

Yes, if you had to take out one 5th of the states rather than one 10th of the states, it works out that way.

I don't even understand what you're "WTF"ing. If you exclude the same amount of data at the Republican extreme as you do from the Democratic extreme, you get an equally silly conclusion.

There is just as much population living in safe red states as in safe blue states.

Selectively ignoring data is wrong.

Clear enough?

[Thommo]

Yes the excuses are hilarious though I suspect the people writing those articles also have to try and save face and convince themselves no way Sanders would win.

Which articles? The articles that said that Sanders could win?

Sorry, in this thread I've provided a fuck ton of data and argument to call bullshit on that.

No, you've manipulated the relatively small amount of data you've cited. Data manipulation is not "calling bullshit", it's just bullshit.

[Rumraket]

The people who couldn't be bothered to come out and vote, would probably have come out and voted for someone that inspired them. At least, that's what all those people disillusioned with the system said. Many of the same people who got inspired and voted for Obama, and ultimately made him president. Everyone who liked Sanders said they were very inspired by him.

Had they put up Sanders instead of Clinton, the people who already went Clinton would most probably have went Sanders, and the people who didn't vote, probably would have vote. And many of the people who reluctantly went Trumpenführer out of sheer spite of Clinton, would have went Sanders instead because even though they didn't exactly agree with many of his policies, they still think he is honest and non-establishment, both of which were among the factors that voters consistently reported as reasons they didn't like Clinton and went Trump instead.

Voter turnout was historically low. If It'd been Sanders-Trump, it would probably have been historically high and Trump would have been massacred.

[Sendraks]

It's astonishing to me that the same people who predicted Clinton couldn't lose to trump, some predicting a landslide are so sure Sanders didn't have significant advantages over Clinton as a candidate.

Indeed. It is a shame none of them are here to argue their points. But, the Hilary rabblerousers have been pretty quiet since the election.