The Sanders Movement

[ydoaPs]

Sanders have 3 million less votes, less earned delegates, and less super delegates.

As I said before, that little talking point is almost certainly false as there's no real way to get a vote count from the caucuses.

If Sanders will lose Dem. nomination could he quit Dem. party and go for presidency as an independant?

He could, but probably won't.

[Delta1212]

You think there are 3 million+ votes unaccounted for in the totals because of imprecise counts at caucuses? Not not just that there are that many unaccounted for but that Sanders has 3 million+ more unaccounted for votes than Clinton out of the caucuses?

 

Sanders is the only candidate I've ever donated money to, but I can still recognize that that isn't even remotely plausible. Hillary has the popular vote in the Democratic primary by a fair margin. The most that can be quibbled about is exactly how much she is leading by, not whether she actually has a lead.

[Phi for All]

I don't think the average person who dislikes Clinton is amenable to changing their minds about her. But I think that same person who won't vote Sanders is because they don't understand his flavor of socialism, preferring to lump all of it under the "Communist" blanket. I feel like that person just needs to actually listen to an explanation of market socialism and their whole perspective on Sanders could change.

 

He's still the most popular rated candidate overall. And the least listened to, and the most misunderstood.

[ydoaPs]

You think there are 3 million+ votes unaccounted for in the totals because of imprecise counts at caucuses? Not not just that there are that many unaccounted for but that Sanders has 3 million+ more unaccounted for votes than Clinton out of the caucuses?

I never made that claim or any remotely like it.

[Ten oz]

I don't think the average person who dislikes Clinton is amenable to changing their minds about her. But I think that same person who won't vote Sanders is because they don't understand his flavor of socialism, preferring to lump all of it under the "Communist" blanket. I feel like that person just needs to actually listen to an explanation of market socialism and their whole perspective on Sanders could change.

 

He's still the most popular rated candidate overall. And the least listened to, and the most misunderstood.

Sanders is the best Candidate who ran this year. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

[Delta1212]

I never made that claim or any remotely like it.

That's the obvious implication of your statement, though. Thr point of stating that Hillary has a 3 million vote lead in the popular vote among Democratic primary voters is that she is leading in raw votes, not just delegates. The only way that "talking point" is invalidated by inaccurate vote counts among the caucuses is if the inaccuracy results in an outcome other than Hillary Clinton having a significant lead in the popular vote, and the only way for that to be the case is if there is an uncounted advantage for Bernie Sanders numbering in the millions.

 

Otherwise, it's completely irrelevant whether that talking point is rendered "inaccurate" by the imprecision of the data, because the central point remains the same. Whether she's up by 3 million or 2.5 million or 3.5 million because we don't have solid enough numbers to say for sure, she's still up by quite a bit and 3 million is a reasonable approximation of how much she is ahead by.

[Unity+]

That's the obvious implication of your statement, though.

I don't see where he is implying that at all. The only argument I get from it is there is no real count from the caucus, therefore the count could be, and most likely is, inaccurate.

[ydoaPs]

That's the obvious implication of your statement, though.

No, the implication is that the people who say Clinton has a 3 million lead in the popular vote either:

(a) don't know what they're talking about.

or

(b) are lying.

 

There's literally no way to justify the claim that Clinton has a 3 million vote lead. It's a baseless talking point and nothing more.

[Delta1212]

I don't see where he is implying that at all. The only argument I get from it is there is no real count from the caucus, therefore the count could be, and most likely is, inaccurate.

There are degrees of inaccuracy. The claim was that, because there is a level of uncertainty in part of the count, the number is a falsehood/lie.

 

I think that's rather strong language. At worst, it would seem to be an imperfect approximation, not something made up out of whole cloth.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Delta1212

[ydoaPs]

There are degrees of inaccuracy. The claim was that, because there is a level of uncertainty in part of the count, the number is a falsehood/lie.

 

I think that's rather strong language. At worst, it would seem to be an imperfect approximation, not something made up out of whole cloth.

20% of the states have caucuses. Those are completely uncountable, because of how caucuses are conducted. That's no minor error bar. We simply have no idea what the popular vote is.

[Ten oz]

No, the implication is that the people who say Clinton has a 3 million lead in the popular vote either:

(a) don't know what they're talking about.

or

(b) are lying.

 

There's literally no way to justify the claim that Clinton has a 3 million vote lead. It's a baseless talking point and nothing more.

Or © we are acknowledging the system as it functions. Some states have open primaries, others have closed primary, and some have caucuses. This isn't some new thing that just came to be in 2016. You are trying to imply that we know nothing because the format in some states isn't a popular vote yet have provided no evidence to support the implication that Sanders has in fact done better than what have been measured. Instead you are just insisting the the uncertianty means all should be thrown out. That makes no sense.

I don't see where he is implying that at all. The only argument I get from it is there is no real count from the caucus, therefore the count could be, and most likely is, inaccurate.

Pointing out that the the number is false, in context of this conversation (Clinton 3 million more popular votes) is moot less one is attempting to imply Sanders is significantly closer. Surely saying Clinton have received 2 or 1 million more votes, in context, makes the same point. Saying we don't know allows a tie or Sanders advantage to exist.

[Unity+]

There are degrees of inaccuracy. The claim was that, because there is a level of uncertainty in part of the count, the number is a falsehood/lie.

 

I think that's rather strong language. At worst, it would seem to be an imperfect approximation, not something made up out of whole cloth.

I would agree there are degrees of inaccuracy. However, as ydoaPs pointed out, only 20% of states have a caucus. Therefore, you might as well compare this situation to a statistic saying that a majority of people are Group A because the survey was done in a small neighborhood rather than a city-wide/state-wide survey. It is somewhat misleading, to say the least.

[Moreno]

He's still the most popular rated candidate overall.

 

And he will not even be on a vote ballot...

[Unity+]

Pointing out that the the number is false, in context of this conversation (Clinton 3 million more popular votes) is moot less one is attempting to imply Sanders is significantly closer. Surely saying Clinton have received 2 or 1 million more votes, in context, makes the same point. Saying we don't know allows a tie or Sanders advantage to exist.

It isn't a moot point, actually. In politics, it is never a moot point because if numbers are misleading, then you would question the credibility of the media source, which is not a moot point. It is a big point.

 

And he will not even be on a vote ballot...

Do you have any reason or evidence to provide that this will be the case?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Unity+

[Delta1212]

I would agree there are degrees of inaccuracy. However, as ydoaPs pointed out, only 20% of states have a caucus. Therefore, you might as well compare this situation to a statistic saying that a majority of people are Group A because the survey was done in a small neighborhood rather than a city-wide/state-wide survey. It is somewhat misleading, to say the least.

But he's saying that the caucus states are the ones that are inaccurate. Which means 80% of states do have accurate numbers, not 20%. That's a very different situation than what you just described.

[Ten oz]

It isn't a moot point, actually. In politics, it is never a moot point because if numbers are misleading, then you would question the credibility of the media source, which is not a moot point. It is a big point.

I think it is more misleading to ignore the process on its own terms. Caucuses, open and closed primaries is the way this process works every election cycle. Nothing new, special, or different happening this year. The implication is that the process is rigged or somehow being manipulated but this is the process both candidates knowing signed up for. This is the process everyone in this thread knew or should have known existed from the very begining.

 

More directly to the point that the true numbers are unknown so saying Clinton has 3 million votes is misleading because of caucus states having restricted and low turnout. What is really being implied is that if caucus states had been open primaries turn out may have been higher and thus Sanders may have gotten more votes. That is a should have could have would have argument that ignores the reality of the process. What actually exists carries much more weight than what could've been had some other process that doesn't exist existed.

 

There is a raw vote count and there is nothing misleading about referencing it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[ydoaPs]

You are trying to imply that we know nothing because the format in some states isn't a popular vote yet have provided no evidence to support the implication that Sanders has in fact done better than what have been measured.

No, I'm quite clearly implying that the popular vote in fact hasn't been measured, because it's unmeasurable. Any claim to the contrary is made by someone who:

(a) doesn't know what they're talking about.

or

(b) is lying.

 

Which are you?

[Delta1212]

No, I'm quite clearly implying that the popular vote in fact hasn't been measured, because it's unmeasurable. Any claim to the contrary is made by someone who:

(a) doesn't know what they're talking about.

or

(b) is lying.

 

Which are you?

Ok, granted. Leading off of that, do you think there is a possibility that Sanders is leading in the popular vote among people who have voted so far in the Democratic primary?

[iNow]

Some perspective:

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11686336/bernie-sanders-lost-democratic-nomination

It's time to accept a harsh truth: Bernie Sanders is not going to win the Democratic nomination to be President of the United States.

(...)

Of course, it's technically possible for Sanders to still get the nomination. But what he would have to do would take some Herculean efforts. He would have to pull off multiple landslide victories

(...)

Sanders is behind by about 300 delegates. That is a lot. Because of the Democrats' proportional allocation rules, he'll need to win every state by 65 percent or more to overcome that deficit. These are margins of victory he hasn't seen except in any primary except for his home state of Vermont.

(...)

By all metrics, Sanders is losing at the ballot box — his roughly 300 pledged delegate shortfall is the result of his approximately 2.5 million vote deficit in the Democratic primary's popular vote, according to the Washington Post. (This number accounts for Sanders's vote share in caucuses, which are left out of some tallies.)

[iNow]

More here:

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11699890/clinton-sanders-poll

The blaze of process arguments circulating around the Democratic Party nominating contest can tend to distract from one fairly simple dynamic that has been driving almost everything else we've seen: Hillary Clinton started this race much more popular than Bernie Sanders, then the gap between them narrowed, and now it has stayed narrow for a while but always in Clinton's favor.

(...)

A great many people would like Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic nominee. But a somewhat larger number would prefer Hillary Clinton, and that's pretty consistently been the case. Sanders has said he wants to stay in the race until everyone's voted, which is fair enough. But when all the votes are counted, they're just going to show what these polls show — a lot of people like him, but more people like Clinton. That's really all there is to it.

[Phi for All]

Although Clinton has the delegates, polling indicates that she's not the smartest choice for the party. Sanders is still more popular against Drumpf, and if Drumpf doesn't get enough delegates and the GOP runs Kasich or Cruz, Clinton loses to Kasich in most polls. Sanders beats anyone the GOP has.

 

Is this an indication that the party is interested in backing Clinton for reasons other than winning the presidency? Despite having the delegates, there are too many other "lesser evil" voters out there that would do something crazy before casting a vote for Clinton. It seems certain that if Big Business can't have Drumpf, or someone else who will keep taxes and regs at a minimum, they'd rather have Clinton than Sanders.

 

By keeping Sanders away from the nomination, the DNC is proving it's goal isn't to have a Democrat as president as much as it is to ensure that whoever gets elected will "play ball". There's only one candidate who hasn't accepted Big Business money.

[Delta1212]

Everyone but Trump dropped out of the race weeks ago and today he got enough delegates to win the nomination, so there is no world in which Trump is not the GOP nominee unless he dies in the next couple months.

[Endy0816]

He has received donations from big businesses. Not anywhere vaguely close to as much as Hillary and mostly from forward thinking(IMO) tech companies, but big for all that.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f

 

Hillary's for perspective:

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2016&type=f&src=b

[iNow]

Sanders hasn't exactly proven himself against the onslaught of negative ads (since Hillary has handled him with kid gloves at the risk of alienating his voters and Trump has actively endorsed him in an obvious attempt to hurt Clinton).

 

I'm not saying he wouldn't withstand it, but his negatives would shoot way way up once the GOP machine and their myriad superpacs began the heavy attacks on him and his commie pinko socialism etc.

 

Clinton has withstood those attacks for decades. There's not much we haven't already heard a thousand times. Bernie? Well, he had a slightly difficult congressional run in 2006, but that's hardly what he'd face if given the party nod.

[Ten oz]

Sanders hasn't exactly proven himself against the onslaught of negative ads (since Hillary has handled him with kid gloves at the risk of alienating his voters and Trump has actively endorsed him in an obvious attempt to hurt Clinton).

 

I'm not saying he wouldn't withstand it, but his negatives would shoot way way up once the GOP machine and their myriad superpacs began the heavy attacks on him and his commie pinko socialism etc.

 

Clinton has withstood those attacks for decades. There's not much we haven't already heard a thousand times. Bernie? Well, he had a slightly difficult congressional run in 2006, but that's hardly what he'd face if given the party nod.

You make an excellent point.

 

I support Sanders. I vote Jill stein in 2012 and Sanders policies are basically Green Party policies.

 

That said I do recognize that Hilary gets it from bothsides. The Right has been on her for decades. How many congressional hearings has Sanders been called before? plus Hillary gets it from the left. Meanwhile Trump gets has a permanent media pass on all his lies (how is the John Miller lie not a big deal) and Sanders is treated with kid gloves so not to upset his base.

 

Ultimately primaries are a party nominating process and not a direct election. From local officials on up this will be a daily grind from now till Nov..Many people will commit themselve to this 60-70 hours a week 7 days a week: ensuring their voters get access to ballots, have access to voting stations, combating propaganda from the otherside, fact checking rumors and claims, collecting donations, explaining policy, and etc, etc, etc. That is why the party system exists. Because it is a team effort. By an inch or a mile the team has chosen Hillary.

 

I think both Trump and Sanders supporters (to an extent) do not appreciate the thousands of people on the ground who will work around the clock from now till election day to ensure that not only do people support their parties Presidential candidate but also down ticket candidates; Senators, Congress, and local officials. They aren't obligated to hard just as hard for anyone.They aren't obligated to work at all. Who here believe Bush wins Florida and the White House in 00" without all the statewide officials busting tail for his campaign? Trump has already lost many Republicans. They still might vote Trump but they will now be working around the clock for him campaign. Floridia official won't change, manipulate, break the law, or put their careers on the line Trump. Trump and Sanders support both how a anti party strain but ultimately those party people do the heavy lifting. Just showing up to vote is the easy part.