At 9/1/15 03:40 PM, Gario wrote: That number is a bit skewed, as it creates a dichotomy where there is none. I, for example, support Sanders because I like his ideas, but I also do not like the idea of Hillary for president. I'll vote for her if it's a choice between her and the Republicans, don't get me wrong, but I don't like her very much, either.

An opinion like mine would count as a part of the 96%, but in reality it SHOULD also count as a part of the 2%, which it can't, in something like that.

By your own account, you like Bernie because you like his positions, not because you were forced into liking him by how much you dislike Hillary. You're exactly in line with that 96% figure.

At 9/1/15 05:02 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/1/15 03:40 PM, Gario wrote: That number is a bit skewed, as it creates a dichotomy where there is none. I, for example, support Sanders because I like his ideas, but I also do not like the idea of Hillary for president. I'll vote for her if it's a choice between her and the Republicans, don't get me wrong, but I don't like her very much, either.

An opinion like mine would count as a part of the 96%, but in reality it SHOULD also count as a part of the 2%, which it can't, in something like that.

By your own account, you like Bernie because you like his positions, not because you were forced into liking him by how much you dislike Hillary. You're exactly in line with that 96% figure.

Yes I am, but that sidesteps my point. I'm asking why those are mutually exclusive positions - I know plenty of people in the 96% who would not vote Hillary if she won the primaries. I do not see why it's divided like that. Your conclusion that people like Hillary because of those numbers is misguided, as agreeing with Bernie's ideas doesn't mean a person will side with Hillary if she won.

At 9/1/15 05:50 PM, Gario wrote: Yes I am, but that sidesteps my point. I'm asking why those are mutually exclusive positions - I know plenty of people in the 96% who would not vote Hillary if she won the primaries. I do not see why it's divided like that. Your conclusion that people like Hillary because of those numbers is misguided, as agreeing with Bernie's ideas doesn't mean a person will side with Hillary if she won.

The 2% figure approximates the amount of people who support Sanders that are unlikely to vote for Hillary when she wins the nomination. The people you mention in your anecdote are likely to fall within this 2% figure. Meaning, Sanders is not an anti-Clinton candidate to progressive Democrats. Thus, he's not running on an anti-Clinton platform. It's reasonable to conclude than most of his supporters will go to Hillary when she gets the nomination.

edit: to be clear, it's not about mutual exclusivity. You can like Hillary and Sanders, but like Sanders more and vote for him in the primaries. That doesn't mean you dislike Hillary, though! Dem primary voters, by and large, fall into this category.

At 9/1/15 06:01 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/1/15 05:50 PM, Gario wrote: Yes I am, but that sidesteps my point. I'm asking why those are mutually exclusive positions - I know plenty of people in the 96% who would not vote Hillary if she won the primaries. I do not see why it's divided like that. Your conclusion that people like Hillary because of those numbers is misguided, as agreeing with Bernie's ideas doesn't mean a person will side with Hillary if she won.

The 2% figure approximates the amount of people who support Sanders that are unlikely to vote for Hillary when she wins the nomination. The people you mention in your anecdote are likely to fall within this 2% figure. Meaning, Sanders is not an anti-Clinton candidate to progressive Democrats. Thus, he's not running on an anti-Clinton platform. It's reasonable to conclude than most of his supporters will go to Hillary when she gets the nomination.

edit: to be clear, it's not about mutual exclusivity. You can like Hillary and Sanders, but like Sanders more and vote for him in the primaries. That doesn't mean you dislike Hillary, though! Dem primary voters, by and large, fall into this category.

Okay, I still think you're drawing a false contrapositive based on uncertain assumptions. It is possible (and I think very possible) that 96% Pro-Bernie does not mean a vast "Pro-Hillary second choice" camp because a significant portion of Bernie's followers are anti-establishment, and older, yet first-time voters, which is an anti-Hillary vote without saying anti-Hillary.

At 9/2/15 12:27 PM, EKublai wrote: Okay, I still think you're drawing a false contrapositive based on uncertain assumptions. It is possible (and I think very possible) that 96% Pro-Bernie does not mean a vast "Pro-Hillary second choice" camp because a significant portion of Bernie's followers are anti-establishment, and older, yet first-time voters, which is an anti-Hillary vote without saying anti-Hillary.

At 9/2/15 12:35 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Yeah, don't think your poll proves that.

Think of it this way -- people who support sanders are pro-Sanders, not anti-Clinton. This should actually be very good news for Bernie supporters because if this were not the case, he would not exist as a candidate without Hillary in the race. But that's not the case! His message is popular with progressives and that's where his support comes from, not due to the mere fact that Hillary is running. However, it can't be said that a vote for Bernie is a vote against Hillary. Sanders is running on a progressive ideological platform, not an "I'm not Hillary" platform. If Biden decides to run, he will likely play that role.

https://mises.org/library/economics-bernie-sanders

Bernie Sanders, noted nationalist.

At 9/2/15 05:16 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: https://mises.org/library/economics-bernie-sanders

Mises is a very tunnel-visioned source. I would say the Smilezroyale of old would love you for using it, though.

Yeah, that article reads like a steaming pile of Ayn Rand worship. I'm sure Bernie's positions are held because his camp is full of "resentment" for those who are better off than they are, and not out of an interest in looking out for the lower and middle classes. Also, the author should get a martial arts medal for that expert sidestepping of the motivations behind using tax havens and outsourcing.

ayn rand will always be useful. anyone who refers to her "teahings" in a positive light you can be confident anything they say is not worth listening to

At 9/3/15 01:22 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Yes, people who are pro-Sanders are pro-Sanders. That's what it means to be pro-Sanders. But it doesn't mean that they are or are not anti-Clinton.

It does when only 2% of his supporters openly identity as anti-Clinton!

And this makes no sense at all.

You're right, it doesn't! Which is why I said that this isn't the reality of the situation!

Anyways, I was here 8 years ago when no one took Barack seriously. He spoke the right way, even if he governed center right. It'll be nice to have someone who can both speak to issues and follow up on them, and that's why I'm supporting Bernie.

I would take this particular line more seriously if Bernie was being pressured to run by the Democratic leadership just like Obama was, but that's obviously not happening.

At 9/3/15 04:22 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/3/15 01:22 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Yes, people who are pro-Sanders are pro-Sanders. That's what it means to be pro-Sanders. But it doesn't mean that they are or are not anti-Clinton.

It does when only 2% of his supporters openly identity as anti-Clinton!

See, this is the issue I (as well as others, apparently) are having. In order to make this statement of yours, you would have to believe that there are only two possibilities - either you vote Bernie because you support Bernie's ideas and are not anti-Clinton, or you vote Bernie even though you do not support Bernie's position, but do so anyway because you hate Clinton. In a poll like that, it's impossible to state that you will vote Bernie because you support Bernie's ideas, and you are anti-Clinton at the same time - that would instead count as supporting him for his ideas (which you mistakenly interpret as willing to support and vote for Hillary, if he were to lose to her). The poll presents itself as only two possibilities, when there are more available.

Of course people support Bernie because of his ideas - to do otherwise would make no sense at all. That does not mean people also support (or would even vote for) Hillary otherwise. That 2% tells you virtually nothing about how his supporters will act in his absense because of this. It's a textbook example of a false dichotomy.

Woah.

Started this thread on a whim last week. Didn't expect it to get such awesome discussions going! Feel bad I'm not contributing, but I'm liking what I'm reading.

Excited to see where his campaign leads him. Even if he doesn't get the nominee, I'm thinking his politics will spill over in some way. At the very least, the word "socialist" is a lot less toxic, and people are starting to understand the word's true meaning.

Before we start dropping numbers on polls it would be wise for some to put forth their information on these polls. Also it is important to note that states vote differently and are connected to both state and federal laws therefore different states poll differently which are not controlled well. Also those who do collect polls are usually swayed to their own beliefs and can sway others to their poll with their rhetoric.

Or to put it bluntly, sometimes numbers are just bullshit.

@Gario @gumOnShoe

I'm only making observations based on the poll, which only lays out the data they find. The question was rather specific:

"Is your support for Bernie Sanders mostly because you support him and his ideas or mostly because you do not support Hillary Clinton?"

96% said they mostly support Sanders and his ideas; 2% said they mostly do not support Hillary Clinton. I personally have a hard time seeing the trouble in extrapolating those numbers to reasonably conclude that if anti-Clinton sentiment was a strong motivating force behind Bernie supporters, you would see way more than 2% saying such. That's a pretty safe assumption to make -- if opposition to Hillary were high, you'd see high opposition to Hillary. If that sounds obvious to you then congratulations, you now understand the poll! Sanders supporters are, by their own admission, not motivated by opposition to Hillary. There's no other way to parse those numbers.

At 9/3/15 09:36 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Either way, the understanding of ideas is essential to good political thought and discussion. If you can't get there, I'll be done communicating with you. This is simple english.

It's ironic you'd criticize someone else's communication skills when you completely ignored my post on Donald Trump when it was convenient for you to do so, but it is what it is.

edit: for a breath of fresh air, have an article from 538 on Bernie and how his lack of support among black voters hurt his chances.

At 9/4/15 12:23 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Our annoyance was based on your assumption that if Sanders loses people will vote for Hillary. It is that point for which you lack evidence.

Of course people will vote for Hillary -- she's going to be the Democratic nominee. What more evidence do I need? Sure, some Bernie supporters will sit out or even write-in, but seeing the low focus on anti-Hillary sentiment among his base I don't see a reason why one cannot come to the logical conclusion that a majority of his supporters will find any justification for voting for her, even the people who hate her. For context, even the hard right voted for Romney despite them believing him to be a RINO liberal plant.

I was asked to keep the topic on Sanders; So I felt like not continuing the conversation. If you want to discuss this in a Trump thread, happy to oblige.

No need, there's already a thread on the guy.

edit: I took this to mean you were asking me to make a thread, but reading this again I don't think that's what you were saying. In any event the ball's in your court.

edit: for a breath of fresh air, have an article from 538 on Bernie and how his lack of support among black voters hurt his chances.

And a Salon article about why this doesn't make a lot of sense:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/20_examples_of_bernie_sanders_powerful_record_on_civil_and_human_rights_partner/

I agree that Sanders is actually the best candidate on the issues which effect the black community, but that's not translating over well in the polls. This article didn't do much of anything in addressing that fact.

We'll see if Bernie decides to ever go in on his credentials here. This might just be an example of misinformation or ignorance. It's early enough for this to change. He's made steps, like hiring on Black Lives matters activists to his campaign. Sure, he's got "old white guy" vibe going on, but we'll see...

I agree that there's plenty of time for a lot of things to change, but I can only comfortably talk about the things we know as of right now. And right now he's not doing well among a key constituency.

Ultimately, it seems, we're working off of semantics. You're counting a vote against the GOP as support for Hillary, where I'm not. That would be support for the party, whomever gets in, in my humble opinion. I also stick to the point that you can't deduce that possibility from those numbers, but you can induce them.

Aside from that, I'll compromise on that point, since it's actually not that important.

At 9/4/15 11:19 AM, Feoric wrote:
edit: for a breath of fresh air, have an article from 538 on Bernie and how his lack of support among black voters hurt his chances.

That point is pretty spot on. I went to the LA rally, and the white wash was one of the most noticeable things there. He is starting to attempt to garner more black and latino support (having one of the heads of the #BLM movement as his press secretary certainly will help), and he DID changed some of his rhetoric to include both immigration and race issues, but we can only see if it'll swing his support in any way.

It's too early to tell, but I'd be fooling myself if I said his lack of multiracial support won't cause him issues down the road.

At 9/4/15 04:31 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: What we know based on your poll:
% of people who support Bernie for his ideas - 96%
% of people who support Bernie ONLY because they don't like Hillary - 2%

Not only. Mostly. Meaning, the main driving force behind an individual being a Sanders supporter. The largest factor, not the only factor. As it turns out, it's not due to anti-Hillary sentiment.

What we cannot assume or know from the poll:
% of people who support Bernie, and will also support Clinton
% of people who support Bernie, but will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination

I don't see these as two separate categories. Which, as @Gario pointed out, is effectively a disagreement on semantics. Also, you're right in the sense that we don't know exact percentages, but it's definitely safe to assume most people will vote for the candidate which is the most closely aligned with their own personal politics. And, for a Bernie supporter, that would be Hillary.

At 9/6/15 08:14 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I probably wouldn't bring myself to vote for an R, but I think I could stay home and just not vote if Hillary really F'd things up in the debates.

The ironic part of this statement is that functionally, not voting because Bernie didn't get nominated, is a vote for the Republicans.

The ironic part of this statement is that functionally, not voting because Bernie didn't get nominated, is a vote for the Republicans.

The inaccurate part of this statement is the claim that 0 = -1

At 9/6/15 01:46 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote:

The ironic part of this statement is that functionally, not voting because Bernie didn't get nominated, is a vote for the Republicans.

The inaccurate part of this statement is the claim that 0 = -1

It's called a 'Zero-Sum game', from a branch of mathematics called 'Game Theory'. Short end of it, if there are only two possible outcomes to a scenario, any action against one counts as an action for another. A Democrat not voting is mathematically as good as a Republican that does vote, for the Republicans, and vice versa.

People have gone through this before, it's not a hard concept to understand.

At 9/6/15 01:46 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote:

The ironic part of this statement is that functionally, not voting because Bernie didn't get nominated, is a vote for the Republicans.

The inaccurate part of this statement is the claim that 0 = -1

Because low voting turnout within a specific demographic has no effect at all on elections.

At 9/6/15 01:46 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: The inaccurate part of this statement is the claim that 0 = -1

Except it's not inaccurate at all.

At 9/6/15 08:14 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Right, the main force is that they like his ideas; ideas that apparently Hillary is not strong enough in. And yet, knowing this tells us nothing about how they view clinton.

It actually tells us a lot when the pollster asks them that very question. lol

This is what you are essentially are saying and it makes no sense

Actually, that's not what I'm saying, but I don't think I can make it any clearer than what I've already said so far.

These numbers are not the same and they are very different. A supporter is someone who might actually argue for a candidate, agree with the candidate, volunteer with the candidate. This is someone who philosophically is in line or believes that they are the best candidate and is willing to go further than voting. In politics this is valuable. This is the person who goes out and finds you more voters. Without these people, you can't win

Here's the thing, though -- Sanders does not represent the DNC platform. Hillary does. The DNC, just like the RNC, is not going to run a candidate that does not tout the party line. And this is why Bernie cannot win and why Hillary will-- the party picks the winners. As we saw with Ron Paul, it doesn't matter how enthusiastic your supporters are or how many sold out stadiums you speak at. Now, you can support Hillary by your definition and still not like her. As a matter of fact most people don't, yet she still has a lot of supporters. That's why the 96% figure is key -- they don't have to like her or even agree with her 100%, but if they think she can beat whoever the GOP puts up and will have a strong administration, chances are they will vote for her. At the end of the day Sanders has a lot more in common with Hillary than Rubio.

Now, Hillary wouldn't need to focus on support (as a separate distinction from votes) from the remnants of Bernie supporters because by the time he drops out, it'll already be clear she's the nominee by virtue of her own supporters. Why would she need to worry about support from Bernie's camp? She already won the nomination! At that point the main thing she would need to focus on would be courting votes from center-left liberals (which would largely entail not fucking up on the campaign trail as you mentioned; she's already been co-opting leftist rhetoric for a while now). Obama beat McCain without any help from the infamous PUMAs back in 2008; they didn't matter much if at all. Why would equally die-hard Bernie supporters matter? If Hillary reaches this point and she has to worry about courting the fringe far-left Bernie supporters then she's probably already lost (or wants to).

I remember having this same exact conversation around 2007, only it was about a wave of disenfranchised Hillary supporters tanking Obama by voting R or staying home. It didn't happen, and I have very little reason to believe why this time is different.

At 9/6/15 01:46 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: The inaccurate part of this statement is the claim that 0 = -1

The election of 2000 (and to a lesser extent, 1992) prove other wise. In 2000 if a meager 1 in 10 would have voted Gore instead of Green the election would have been very different. In 1992, if 1 in 3 had voted Bush instead of Perot, it would have looked quite different (my math indicates still a win for Clinton, but a squeaker instead of a landslide.) That's sifnificanly less than half for both of those elections.

In this current election where it's still quite difficult to tell which way the vote (mainly the middle swing vote) will go, a noticeable percentage of disenfranchised Sanders voters may all that's between us and a GOP President. Now, I do know that in many states it really doesn't matter. There are enough smart voters in states like Oregon, California, new York and such to counter out the destructuve pouting types, but what about in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia? In these states, a mere 1000 pouters can turn the entire state from "Not that great, but at least safe" to "highway to hell" (And not the good kind).

At 9/6/15 06:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/6/15 01:46 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: The inaccurate part of this statement is the claim that 0 = -1

The election of 2000 (and to a lesser extent, 1992) prove otherwise.

actually it doesn't. a vote for a candidate is counted differently than no vote. the end.

At 9/6/15 07:27 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: actually it doesn't. a vote for a candidate is counted differently than no vote. the end.

Cool, thanks for settling the matter.

At 9/6/15 07:27 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote: actually it doesn't. a vote for a candidate is counted differently than no vote. the end.

That's why in my original statement I said FUNCTIONALLY. Meaning that as far as the outcome of the election is concerned a no vote is a vote for the Two Party candidate you like the least. A liberal not voting because Bernie isn't in does not cancel out a conservative voting for the GOP candidate and thus the lack of vote therefore equals a vote for he other party.

instead of being 1 to 1, it becomes 0 to 1 in favor of the opposing party. Make sense now, Rand Paul?

At 9/7/15 03:10 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: You've all learned and understood the basics of how to keep the "other" party out of politics. But, you haven't learned the basics of how to keep your party on track.

You're gravely missing the point. No one here is saying abandon Bernie because he can't win (well, I have said that before, but that's not the current direction here). We're saying that abandoning the Democrats altogether because your preferred candidate didn't make it is little more than a recipe to get the WORST candidate in. At this point the candidate is already set and you have a choice of decent or catastrophic. Before the point with which the candidates are set, then yes, go for the one you think is ultimately best.

At least safe is at most failure.

No. At least safe is what will keep tens of millions on health nsurance, will keep allowing gays to marry, will keep hundreds of thousands of immigrant families from being torn apart, and so on and so forth. Mind you, it is the sentiment you espouse that handed the Republicans such a large landslide victory in 2014 (instead of making them earn a much smaller victory).

At 9/7/15 03:10 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Clinton does not stand for me, and until she does she cannot have my vote.

Then you're not a Democrat. Or, at the very least, fall within a point on the spectrum outside of the DNC's platform. Which is fine by the way, but what you're describing isn't a problem for the Democratic party at large (unless you can demonstrate that the platform itself is the problem for the broader electorate of which you are a part of).

At 9/7/15 04:16 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: The problem here is that you're assuming a conclusion
Last i looked Bernie has updated trajectory and the lead.
A candidate has not been selected, and what the democrats represent is what is up for debate now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-28/clinton-camp-saying-it-already-secured-one-fifth-the-delegates-needed-for-nomination

edit: I'll make another one of my bets -- if Hillary as a candidate (this assumes she's still actively seeking the nomination) loses the nomination to anybody else (not just Sanders) then I will ask an admin to delete my account.

At 9/7/15 10:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Don't be so quick to believe you know who or what is or is not something. All that I hear from your mouth is partisan bull shit. We have politicians and governments to create a better tomorrow. Clinton doesn't believe in one. I can't believe in her.

If it makes you feel better I much prefer Bernie over Hillary purely on the basis of ideology. Yet, at the same time, I also recognize the fact that Hillary is objectively a better candidate. If you're under the impression that I'm an ardent supporter of the Democratic party or even the Clintons in general then you should be pleased to learn that I'm not. Despite this, I don't allow my own personal views to act as blinders which prevent me from seeing the bigger picture; the reality is that Hillary already more or less has the delegate count locked up even without having to worry about Iowa and New Hampshire (which Bernie actually has a real decent chance of winning!). Barring a catastrophic event which forces her departure from the race, she's going to be the nominee. She has the donors and the delegates on top of the luxury of being one of potentially two serious candidates in an otherwise weak field. The condition of these critical fundamentals are not my opinion -- they are reported facts. If you believe that to be partisan bullshit as you put it then that is only correct in the sense that this is what the DNC wants.