The Myth of Sanders' electability

[Rotobeast]

(05-12-2016, 01:17 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Holy shit.  Someone needs to kick me in the face and wake me up.  I agree with parts of these posts... From these two.  

WTF is wrong with me?   Roto, get that tray ready...  I'm ready for that center cut. 

My thought on free college is that the cost should be tied to GPA.
If you meet the upper tier requirement, you get it for free.
It would continue downward on a prorated scale, where anything below a C- would require 100% payback. 

[GMDino]

(05-12-2016, 12:03 PM)Rotobeast Wrote:

More like:

[Rotobeast]

(05-12-2016, 12:08 PM)GMDino Wrote:

More like:

I considered those.
I elected for the more recent and visually appealing.
:)

[*michaelsean*]

I'm really hoping Hillary gets in some sort of trouble with the email thing, and we end up with Sanders-Trump. I mean let's just blow the lid off this.

[Rotobeast]

(05-12-2016, 12:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm really hoping Hillary gets in some sort of trouble with the email thing, and we end up with Sanders-Trump. I mean let's just blow the lid off this.

Agreed.

[Griever]

(05-12-2016, 12:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm really hoping Hillary gets in some sort of trouble with the email thing, and we end up with Sanders-Trump.  I mean let's just blow the lid off this.

if she hasnt yet, i doubt she ever will

[SteelCitySouth]

(05-12-2016, 11:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Another popular Bernie myth.

Hillary does better in open primaries. She has won 12 for 20 (60%) open or semi open staes. She only won 11 of 22 (50%) closed or semi closed states. 

not accusing you of lying, but there are so many lies that are rampant among Bernie fans online. Just straight up lies regarding the election.

27% of the State is non-affiliated.

All open primaries have been closely contested but for a few.  Those being in the south where no one is surprised that Clinton won.  Also WV...Where I think Hitler could have beaten Clinton.

27% is a large portion.  Not saying Sanders would have won, however saying he couldn't have is quite naive.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-12-2016, 09:00 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The problem with Bernie supporters is that, while intelligent, they suspend rational thought and focus on their emotions.

There's no corporate media campaign against him. The two candidates getting the most votes get the most airtime.

Clinton doesn't have to run negative ads cause her PACs do! Ok, but Bernie's PACs could have and spared him from running negative ads. Oh wait, he ran negative ads and lost NY because of it.

At no point did the article say that he is unelectable because he hasn't been attacked. The point of the article is that he has been ignored and that things in his past that could easily have been attacked have not been, so you cannot say he is more electable without having him truly run the gauntlet. Hillary has run the gauntlet and leads Trump. Hillary will not attack him because it will hurt her support in the general. Republicans have not attacked him because he won't be the nominee, so why waste the energy?

Yes, he has been ignored.  By the media.  Hillary didn't bring it up 'his past' in debates, just like Bernie didn't bring up all the RECENT bullshit surrounding Hillary.  

(05-12-2016, 11:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Another popular Bernie myth.

Hillary does better in open primaries. She has won 12 for 20 (60%) open or semi open staes. She only won 11 of 22 (50%) closed or semi closed states. 

not accusing you of lying, but there are so many lies that are rampant among Bernie fans online. Just straight up lies regarding the election.

Lying?  I think we'd be better off asking Hillary about her 'lies' than focusing on open / closed primary bernie supporter 'lies'.  What are your thoughts on the bullshit that went down in AZ?  

I get it.  Bernie is older than the ideal candidate.  He's got a long history of saying crazy shit.  He's got weird ideas that a lot of people can't fathom because it breaks with their world view and might affect their utopian pathetic existence.  But, at least he's not hillary. Listen, peg me as suspending rational thought and focusing on my emotions, but the idea that the next best democratic candidate for POTUS just happens to be the a former first lady absolutely infuriates me.   Put all the other terrible things about hillary aside.  Think about that.  Think about the infinitesimal chances...  This is supposed to be a democracy.  And the next POTUS candidate is the wife of a former POTUS.  I abhor nepotism in all contexts.  Its the same concept that rubbed me raw with GWB.  Its like saying the best backup QB for carson just so ***** happens to be jordan...  Having this jammed down my throat over and over again is just intolerable. 

[Bengalholic]

The funniest thing about the choice voters will be faced with between Clinton and Trump...

Democrats/Liberals will be choosing whether to vote for a nominee who is a neo-con, loves big business and the wealthy, and doesn't have a truly progressive bone in her body...at least IMO.

Republicans/Conservatives will be deciding whether to vote for a guy who, despite what he's portraying right now, is basically a life long Democrat who will be more progressive that Hillary...again, IMO.

There's a very real reason why Clinton is having trouble garnering 'trust' even among those who have cast votes for her...because she can't be trusted and has done next to nothing to alter that perception.

And there's a reason why Cruz, the National Review and quite a few members of the R party have accused Trump of still being a Democrat...because they know he'll end up being much more liberal than Hillary if elected.

While I'm not overly enthused about Sanders or sold on all of his ideas, at this point I think I would pull the lever for him over the either of the two charlatan front runners. Unfortunately, that won't be an option.

[BmorePat87]

(05-12-2016, 01:18 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: 27% of the State is non-affiliated.

All open primaries have been closely contested but for a few.  Those being in the south where no one is surprised that Clinton won.  Also WV...Where I think Hitler could have beaten Clinton.

27% is a large portion.  Not saying Sanders would have won, however saying he couldn't have is quite naive.

the national average is 43%, so that's not really significant. Also, no one is saying he couldn't have won, you responded to me saying that going negative caused him to lose by suggesting that the fact that it was a closed primary caused him to lose. He has won 50% of all closed and only 40% of all open.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-12-2016, 02:09 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: The funniest thing about the choice voters will faced with between Clinton and Trump...

Democrats/Liberals will be choosing whether to vote for a nominee who is a neo-con, loves big business and the wealthy, and doesn't have a truly progressive bone in her body...at least IMO.

Republicans/Conservatives will be deciding whether to vote for a guy who, despite what he's portraying right now, is basically a life long Democrat who will be more progressive that Hillary...again, IMO.

There's a very real reason why Clinton is having trouble garnering 'trust' even among those who have cast votes for her...because she can't be trusted and has done next to nothing to alter that perception.

And there's a reason why Cruz, the National Review and quite a few members of the R party have accused Trump of still being a Democrat...because they know he'll end up being much more liberal than Hillary if elected.

While I'm not overly enthused about Sanders or sold on all of his ideas, at this point I think I would pull the lever for him over the either of the two charlatan front runners. Unfortunately, that won't be an option.

Thank God we have a socialist running this board, or we may have to pay to play.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(05-12-2016, 01:48 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Yes, he has been ignored.  By the media.  Hillary didn't bring it up 'his past' in debates, just like Bernie didn't bring up all the RECENT bullshit surrounding Hillary.  



Lying?  I think we'd be better off asking Hillary about her 'lies' than focusing on open / closed primary bernie supporter 'lies'.  What are your thoughts on the bullshit that went down in AZ?  

I get it.  Bernie is older than the ideal candidate.  He's got a long history of saying crazy shit.  He's got weird ideas that a lot of people can't fathom because it breaks with their world view and might affect their utopian pathetic existence.  But, at least he's not hillary. Listen, peg me as suspending rational thought and focusing on my emotions, but the idea that the next best democratic candidate for POTUS just happens to be the a former first lady absolutely infuriates me.   Put all the other terrible things about hillary aside.  Think about that.  Think about the infinitesimal chances...  This is supposed to be a democracy.  And the next POTUS candidate is the wife of a former POTUS.  I abhor nepotism in all contexts.  Its the same concept that rubbed me raw with GWB.  Its like saying the best backup QB for carson just so ***** happens to be jordan...  Having this jammed down my throat over and over again is just intolerable. 

Well, she was at Bilderberg wasn't she?

[BmorePat87]

(05-12-2016, 01:48 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Yes, he has been ignored.  By the media.  Hillary didn't bring it up 'his past' in debates, just like Bernie didn't bring up all the RECENT bullshit surrounding Hillary.  



Lying?  I think we'd be better off asking Hillary about her 'lies' than focusing on open / closed primary bernie supporter 'lies'.  What are your thoughts on the bullshit that went down in AZ?  

I get it.  Bernie is older than the ideal candidate.  He's got a long history of saying crazy shit.  He's got weird ideas that a lot of people can't fathom because it breaks with their world view and might affect their utopian pathetic existence.  But, at least he's not hillary. Listen, peg me as suspending rational thought and focusing on my emotions, but the idea that the next best democratic candidate for POTUS just happens to be the a former first lady absolutely infuriates me.   Put all the other terrible things about hillary aside.  Think about that.  Think about the infinitesimal chances...  This is supposed to be a democracy.  And the next POTUS candidate is the wife of a former POTUS.  I abhor nepotism in all contexts.  Its the same concept that rubbed me raw with GWB.  Its like saying the best backup QB for carson just so ***** happens to be jordan...  Having this jammed down my throat over and over again is just intolerable. 

Correct, the whole point of the article is Bernie's past has not been brought up. I'm glad we agree on that. 

This isn't a discussion of whether or not we think she has lied, this is a discussion of electability. When one makes the argument that he does better in open primaries, hence he'll do better with independents, that should be true. It is not. 

There are a number of legitimate arguments against Hillary, and no one is discrediting those. If you read the article, they note that Hillary may be one of the most scrutinized candidates ever prior to a general election. Everything is on the table and has been for decades. The article just states that you cannot begin to compare Bernie to her as Bernie has not been vetted the same way. This whole "Bernie clearly is the better candidate in general" argument may prove to be true AFTER he faces the same level of scrutiny that she has faced for his past, but he hasn't had to deal with that yet. 

Everyone's personal feelings towards Hillary are legitimate, but they're not going to change the fact that red flags in Bernie's past (yes, there are many) have been ignored by his opponents, but not because there's nothing there.

[SteelCitySouth]

(05-12-2016, 02:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: the national average is 43%, so that's not really significant. Also, no one is saying he couldn't have won, you responded to me saying that going negative caused him to lose by suggesting that the fact that it was a closed primary caused him to lose. He has won 50% of all closed and only 40% of all open.

Largely her open wins came form the south....Where it was nearly a guarantee she would win.  When it comes to the North however her open wins were much closer and much fewer.  She only had 5 open wins in the North vs. Sanders 10.  

It would have been much closer and or a win for Sanders.

Bye the way...I am not a Sanders supporter nor a Clinton supporter.  I chose to vote in the GOP primary this year, not becasue I have a dog in that fight either, and I am struggling to figure out who I will vote for in November.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-12-2016, 02:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Correct, the whole point of the article is Bernie's past has not been brought up. I'm glad we agree on that. 

This isn't a discussion of whether or not we think she has lied, this is a discussion of electability. When one makes the argument that he does better in open primaries, hence he'll do better with independents, that should be true. It is not. 

There are a number of legitimate arguments against Hillary, and no one is discrediting those. If you read the article, they note that Hillary may be one of the most scrutinized candidates ever prior to a general election. Everything is on the table and has been for decades. The article just states that you cannot begin to compare Bernie to her as Bernie has not been vetted the same way. This whole "Bernie clearly is the better candidate in general" argument may prove to be true AFTER he faces the same level of scrutiny that she has faced for his past, but he hasn't had to deal with that yet. 

Everyone's personal feelings towards Hillary are legitimate, but they're not going to change the fact that red flags in Bernie's past (yes, there are many) have been ignored by his opponents, but not because there's nothing there.

True.  Read the article and came away seething pissed like I do anytime I'm faced with inevitability of her candidacy.  Can we please get back to focusing on MY EMOTIONS already!!!
 

[StLucieBengal]

(05-12-2016, 02:41 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Largely her open wins came form the south....Where it was nearly a guarantee she would win.  When it comes to the North however her open wins were much closer and much fewer.  She only had 5 open wins in the North vs. Sanders 10.  

It would have been much closer and or a win for Sanders.

Bye the way...I am not a Sanders supporter nor a Clinton supporter.  I chose to vote in the GOP primary this year, not becasue I have a dog in that fight either, and I am struggling to figure out who I will vote for in November.

I am still shocked that blacks vote for her over sanders.    They would fare better in a sanders admin than a Clinton.   Heck look what she and bill dos to blacks the last time around.   

[BmorePat87]

(05-12-2016, 02:41 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Largely her open wins came form the south....Where it was nearly a guarantee she would win.  When it comes to the North however her open wins were much closer and much fewer.  She only had 5 open wins in the North vs. Sanders 10.  

It would have been much closer and or a win for Sanders.

Bye the way...I am not a Sanders supporter nor a Clinton supporter.  I chose to vote in the GOP primary this year, not becasue I have a dog in that fight either, and I am struggling to figure out who I will vote for in November.

If we're going to argue regions, I'd counter with the fact that only one of those 8 open states that Bernie won was a "Northern" state, the rest were Midwest or the West Coast. Hillary did quite well in the Midatlantic, winning by double digits in NY, VA, MD, DE, and PA. I don't see any evidence to suggest that an open primary would have made up for that 16% loss. It wasn't close. 

[SteelCitySouth]

(05-12-2016, 03:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If we're going to argue regions, I'd counter with the fact that only one of those 8 open states that Bernie won was a "Northern" state, the rest were Midwest or the West Coast. Hillary did quite well in the Midatlantic, winning by double digits in NY, VA, MD, DE, and PA. I don't see any evidence to suggest that an open primary would have made up for that 16% loss. It wasn't close. 

Last I heard the mason dixon line was the delineation between north and south.  I didn't say North-East.  Also he had another win in that area as well you are missing.  It appears we simply differ on how we evaluate the evidence.  But again I'll point out that you are indicating that there is only one reason for his loss in NY while I am arguing that there are others...plural...and that possibly a larger factor was the closed nature of the primary.

[Yojimbo]

(05-12-2016, 03:22 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Last I heard the mason dixon line was the delineation between north and south.  I didn't say North-East.  Also he had another win in that area as well you are missing.  It appears we simply differ on how we evaluate the evidence.  But again I'll point out that you are indicating that there is only one reason for his loss in NY while I am arguing that there are others...plural...and that possibly a larger factor was the closed nature of the primary.

Not to mention the last minute purges of voters that are currently being litigated.

[BmorePat87]

(05-12-2016, 03:22 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Last I heard the mason dixon line was the delineation between north and south.  I didn't say North-East.  Also he had another win in that area as well you are missing.  It appears we simply differ on how we evaluate the evidence.  But again I'll point out that you are indicating that there is only one reason for his loss in NY while I am arguing that there are others...plural...and that possibly a larger factor was the closed nature of the primary.

It isn't. As a Marylander, I can attest to that. It's merely the line used by the King to take away land from Maryland and establish the borders for MD, PA, and DE. Maryland's original colonial grant gave it control of much of Southern PA (up to the 40th parallel). 50 years later when PA was established, King Charles said that PA's southern border was MD's northern border, but used a map with an error on it and misread where MD's border was. This line just settled the issue, taking much of MD's land away so that PA could have a port city (Philly). 

If we're looking at trends, using regions is far more reliable than just saying, anything north of Maryland's north border is "the North" and is similar. the Midwest is far different from the mid Atlantic region. Even just referring to the "North", most just include the Mid-Atlantic from MD up and New England, just as the Southwest and isn't called "the South". 

I get what you're saying, though, and, yes, I shouldn't speak in absolutes for why someone lost. He lost for a wide variety of reasons beyond negative campaigning.