logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 444

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

Which doesn’t exist, because Bernie never took on Trump head-to-head as the Democratic nominee.

You could still ask “If the election were taking place today between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, which would you vote for?”

Well you can ask, but the data won’t mean anything because people are in a different place now than they were in November of last year.

Author
Time

I just hate the “would Bernie have won” conversation.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I agree. It’s unknowable, yet many people believe it’s an irrefutable fact.

Kind of like climate change. 😉

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

The DNC superdelegate argument is tough because Hillary still won the popular vote.

But Obama beat Romney by 5 million. The greater the difference in the popular vote, the less likely we’ll see flukes in the electoral vote. Hillary appealed to the wrong areas. Sanders had more universal appeal and seems like he would have likely garnered more electoral votes.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Sanders had more universal appeal and seems like he would have likely garnered more electoral votes.

It’s possible, but there’s no way to know how much damage would have been done to his reputation once he was a target of the right. SOCIALIST!!! may have still been an extremely potent attack in 2016.

Author
Time

It’s Not All About Clinton — The Midwest Was Getting Redder Before 2016

The Midwest should see a doctor about that.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

The DNC superdelegate argument is tough because Hillary still won the popular vote.

But Obama beat Romney by 5 million. The greater the difference in the popular vote, the less likely we’ll see flukes in the electoral vote. Hillary appealed to the wrong areas. Sanders had more universal appeal and seems like he would have likely garnered more electoral votes.

I actually meant that she won the popular vote against Sanders in the primaries.

The Sanders what if is a tough question. On the one hand it does seem like he was more liked in the places Clinton ultimately lost. But we have no idea what the discourse would have been like. Hard to imagine a self proclaimed socialist having more universal appeal in the US.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Maybe I’m just tired but those graphs are extraordinarily confusing.

I was confused too, but I think I figured it out. The x axis is how you feel, with the right side being ‘very positive’ and the left being ‘very negative’. If a lot of people really love n group, then there would be a tall spike on the right side, if a lot of people disliked that group, the spike would be on the left. If very few people liked that group, the spike on the right would be much smaller. You were probably joking though.

Author
Time

Do people still care about socialism?

Author
Time

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.

The Republican politicians just about all spinelessly endorsed Trump. Case closed on moral superiority.

While I don’t disagree that it was stupid, I don’t think that necessarily makes them morally inferior alone. Let me give you a personal example: I was the clinical preceptor in my department of the hospital, which basically means on my floor, I was Number 2. The director loved me and thought I was amazing; she promoted me and provided me many opportunities. She also did a whole bunch of stupid stuff that alienated her staff, pissed me off, and set me up for some difficult situations when she decided to leave. I realized that, in order to be a tempering influence for good on my floor, sometimes I would have to tow the line, even when I disagreed with my boss. If I hadn’t played along, I likely would have gotten fired (my predecessor as clinical preceptor had been fired before me for disagreeing too often and too publicly). Now that she’s gone, I’m Number 1, and I am able to make some significant changes/improvements to the department and the hospital as a whole.

Moral of the story: sometimes, to secure your influence, you have to support those in power, even when you vehemently oppose them personally. I am certain that a number of Republicans in Congress loved Trump. Note, however, how many prominent Republcians opposed him. And note how many were not then holding office or not seeking office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

The Democrat primary system is not about a person; it’s the DNC’s system that has been in place since the '80s, is upheld by the elected, and does not represent the evils of a specific individual. It’s a foolish system that runs contrary to the Party’s supposed ideals. Then again, the whole primary system is pretty screwy.

I am not saying Republicans are morally superior, as I, myself, have abandoned the GOP. I’m just saying that you can’t lay it all on that one issue.

Author
Time

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Maybe I’m just tired but those graphs are extraordinarily confusing.

I was confused too, but I think I figured it out. The x axis is how you feel, with the right side being ‘very positive’ and the left being ‘very negative’. If a lot of people really love n group, then there would be a tall spike on the right side, if a lot of people disliked that group, the spike would be on the left. If very few people liked that group, the spike on the right would be much smaller. You were probably joking though.

I wasn’t joking, I couldn’t figure it out. Granted I didn’t spend a lot of time on it, though.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump.

While there is no way to prove that he would have won, I feel he easily could have better united the Democrat Party and that his supporters were far more passionate than Clinton’s. Heck, Jeebus here protest voted against Hillary. I doubt there would have been much of that against Bernie, even among Hillary supporters. I’ve no doubt most would have gone ahead and voted for Bernie as their number two pick.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump.

While there is no way to prove that he would have won, I feel he easily could have better united the Democrat Party and that his supporters were far more passionate than Clinton’s. Heck, Jeebus here protest voted against Hillary. I doubt there would have been much of that against Bernie, even among Hillary supporters. I’ve no doubt most would have gone ahead and voted for Bernie as their number two pick.

I think the unification problem had more to do with Bernie’s supports (and to some extent Bernie himself) than Clinton herself.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump.

While there is no way to prove that he would have won, I feel he easily could have better united the Democrat Party and that his supporters were far more passionate than Clinton’s. Heck, Jeebus here protest voted against Hillary. I doubt there would have been much of that against Bernie, even among Hillary supporters. I’ve no doubt most would have gone ahead and voted for Bernie as their number two pick.

I was thinking about it, but I ended up not voting. Didn’t feel good about going into the booth for either one of them, but I see now who was the better of the two. Hindsight’s 20/20, I suppose.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

DominicCobb said:

The DNC superdelegate argument is tough because Hillary still won the popular vote.

He was saying that the fact that the superdelegate system exists is a factor, not just its results.

C’mon, man. You think the party that holds unelected, unpledged, and unaccountable delegates could not select a candidate contrary to the popular will of its constituency, and thus lose the chance of gaining the popular vote in the general election? You think the party that deliberately sabotaged the leading competitors campaign bears no responsibility for the final outcome of the 2016 election? In terms of elected delegates, Bernie and Hillary were pretty close, almost coming in even at one point. Imagine, without the superdelegates counted in the mix and making his campaign look less successful than it actually was, how the momentum might have swayed further in Sanders’ favor. Sure, we’ll never know how it might have turned out. I do know that the DNC shot themselves in the foot by how the whole process was handled, from the institutionalized superdelegate system to the corruption of the 2016 Democrat primaries.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump.

While there is no way to prove that he would have won, I feel he easily could have better united the Democrat Party and that his supporters were far more passionate than Clinton’s. Heck, Jeebus here protest voted against Hillary. I doubt there would have been much of that against Bernie, even among Hillary supporters. I’ve no doubt most would have gone ahead and voted for Bernie as their number two pick.

I think the unification problem had more to do with Bernie’s supports (and to some extent Bernie himself) than Clinton herself.

Yup, screw Bernie. How dare he be such a good candidate that Hillary looked bad in comparison 😛

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Sanders had more universal appeal and seems like he would have likely garnered more electoral votes.

It’s possible, but there’s no way to know how much damage would have been done to his reputation once he was a target of the right. SOCIALIST!!! may have still been an extremely potent attack in 2016.

True. But ultimately, a general election is more of a test of ideological enthusiasm than actual national representation. Democrats outnumber Republicans, and yet general elections tend to be rather evenly split in terms of sheer wins and losses. Romney was a far better Republican candidate than Trump, and I’ll bet you the majority of the nation today would agree with that. Unfortunately, he was unable to turn out the vote. I think even many Republicans think Hillary was a better candidate than The Donald (I sure do; I was actually disappointed for the first time in my life that a Republican won the presidency!). Nevertheless, she was unable to turn out the vote, at least in the key states.

My point is that I believe those who wouldn’t vote for Bernie because of his self-identified socialism probably wouldn’t have turned out for Hillary anyway. I just think he could have gotten Left-leaners out of the woodwork better than Hillary could have.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

The DNC superdelegate argument is tough because Hillary still won the popular vote.

But Obama beat Romney by 5 million. The greater the difference in the popular vote, the less likely we’ll see flukes in the electoral vote. Hillary appealed to the wrong areas. Sanders had more universal appeal and seems like he would have likely garnered more electoral votes.

I actually meant that she won the popular vote against Sanders in the primaries.

The Sanders what if is a tough question. On the one hand it does seem like he was more liked in the places Clinton ultimately lost. But we have no idea what the discourse would have been like. Hard to imagine a self proclaimed socialist having more universal appeal in the US.

Oh I see. I agree that we don’t know that he would have won. I think people are latching on too much to what I did not actually say, however. I did not say Bernie would have won, though I’m pointing out that he might have had a better shot. The point of my original comment is meant to place more emphasis that the DNC’s system is screwed up and undemocratic and that they damaged their moral standing with their own people in 2016.

I do believe Bernie may have fared better in a primary election with all things being equal aside from the superdelegates. Remember, whoever wins the first four primary elections stands a good chance to win the entire primary race, even if other candidates are more popular in other states. This is because a candidate is seen as having momentum and his/her win seems inevitable, even if it is not necessarily so. Sanders was gaining momentum and nearly caught up to Hillary in terms of elected delegates. However, with the superdelegates making his win appear impossible, he started to slide back, and ultimately could not mathematically win the nomination. I’m merely speculating, but I believe he could have won the nomination had the superdelegate process not made his cause look futile.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Do people still care about socialism?

I certainly do. Socialism is a stupid idea. Just because Bernie was likable didn’t mean his policies were realistic or wise.

That said, a mix of capitalism with social programs is, I believe the best bet for economic security and prosperity.

Author
Time

It’s a fair speculation, though I’m a bit skeptical.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-sanders-comeback-would-be-unprecedented/

Let me begin by saying that I bear no ill will towards Mr. Sanders. Nothing that follows should be misconstrued as an attack on his policies, his track record, his electability in November or his character. I’m not a corporate media crony, or a plant from a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. I’m just a guy who believes in the predictive power of cold, hard data.

And the unsexy truth is that, barring some catastrophic news event, Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. In fact, most past candidates in Sanders’s position dropped out long before this point in the race, and those who stayed in made little pretense of winning. (The Sanders campaign, which announced Wednesday it was laying off a ton of staff, may be recognizing this.)

Historically speaking, Democratic primary races do not have many twists and turns. Rather, the eventual winner tends to take an early lead — on or before Super Tuesday — and stay there. Runner-ups can kick for a while, but they tend to concede the race by February or early March.

As it stands, Sanders is firmly in runner-up territory. He is losing 9 million to 12 million among those who have already voted, and polls show him lagging by an average of 8.8 percentage points in the states yet to vote. Sanders has gained substantially in national polls but is still the less popular candidate (outside of the Bernietopia that is social media).

To be kind to the Sanders camp, I ignored superdelegates and demographics.

The result is pretty striking: After the early days of the campaign, no underdog has ever won the Democratic nomination. A true come-from-behind victory would show up on this chart as a green line (winners) wandering above the 50 percent line (falling behind) before crossing back over (catching up) and veering toward the bottom of the chart. Instead, after the mad scramble for the first 10 percent of delegates, no candidate ever crosses over the 50 percent line. That is, the king stay the king. (Of course, there haven’t been that many Democratic primaries in the modern era, so I wouldn’t interpret this data as some type of iron-clad rule.)

The reason for this is pretty simple: Proportional allocation of delegates makes comebacks really, really hard. You can’t just notch wins in a string of states, as Sanders did in late March and early April. You have to start consistently trouncing your opponent by large margins in every contest. You need, well, a political revolution.

But what about Obama? Sanders supporters have compared their candidate’s current deficit to Obama’s in 2008, but at this point in that election Obama was actually winning by 143 pledged delegates — enough that Clinton, despite still holding a lead in superdelegates, was receiving pressure to drop out of the race. In fact, Obama was at no point in 2008 actually behind Clinton in pledged delegates. It’s just that the media usually included superdelegates in their counts in 2008, and the DNC has instructed them not to this time around. That’s because we’ve learned our lesson: Superdelegates can change their mind. Unfortunately for Sanders, pledged delegates can’t.