4 ms·

I've been following Bernie's run very closely (and am the foolish pollyanna type that still has his fingers crossed for a miracle in California) But, if you lo

by alexc05 10y ago

I've been following Bernie's run very closely (and am the foolish pollyanna type that still has his fingers crossed for a miracle in California) But, if you look at Clinton/Bernie he underperformed in States with "closed primaries" meaning people had to declare party affiliation months in advance. (New York was almost a year ago) independents and swing-voters weren't allowed to say "hey, I actually like this Bernie guy." Bernie did overwhelmingly well in places with open primaries. On two occasions he "beat the polls" (IIRC -Indiana and one other had Clinton's chances of winning at ~99% and he came out with victory) open primaries are being credited with contributing to that phenomenon. People who have never voted are coming into the mix for Bernie If you look closely you will also see a couple States where there has been either "gross incompetence" or voter suppression / electoral fraud. People's part affiliation swapped without their knowledge, budget cuts forcing extremely long lines, running out of ballots. In some areas around electronic voting machines, the disparity between voter counts and exit polls are higher than the ones seen at the Ukrainian election which was declared fraudulent. In Chicago for example there was an "audit" where the observers saw the clerks alter their tallies to match the expected number. I know that it's all very "tinfoil hat" sounding, but there are a number of places where the disparity is highly suspect. Edit: (Apologies, I started pasting in references for my outlandish claims and it got wiped because of a mobile-page-reload and have now got to decide whether or not to throw my phone out the bleeping window :)) Here's one reference covering a few points about the electoral fraud thing: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9550670.html http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9... The examples have gotten more egregious since it was written though.

mahranch 10y ago
> I know that it's all very "tinfoil hat" sounding, but there are a number of places where the disparity is highly suspect. It is tinfoil hat sounding because it is tinfoil hat territory. I'm sorry, but the internet has made Sanders supporters lose touch with reality; Hillary Clinton, even at the very end, still beat Sanders by double digits (source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-d...). The Obama vs Clinton matchup was much, much closer. We're only talking a few point difference. I saw this same thing happen back in 2008 with Ron Paul. Paul supporters had a hard time believing that Paul didn't stand a chance. The reason Clinton trounced Sanders is multifaceted; First off, Sanders is old and he's Jewish. Unfortunately, that puts some people off right away (bigotry and prejudice is still alive and well in America). Secondly, he embraced the term Socialist. While people under 40 may be aware of what that term entails (we think of European/democratic socialism, not Russian/Chinese socialism) the older generation & boomers still thinks of the commies and pinkos. America is still 10-30 years away from using that word without the stigma & negative connotations. And that kind of sums up Sanders; he's espousing an ideology that America isn't quite ready for. We need to move further to the left a bit. Kind of like how the GOP has kept moving this country to the right over the last 35 years, we need to move it back to the center, and ultimately to the left. I'm a democratic socialist myself but even I knew Sanders didn't stand a chance. That's because I'm aware that it's going to take some time. Perhaps a couple decades. It starts with small steps, electing moderates who lean left, then finally left candidates like Sanders.
- kiya0 10y ago
  I dont think it needs to take that mucb time. Elizabeth Warren would have had a better shot than Sanders and would have still stood for a lot of the same stuff.
  - mahranch 10y ago
    Well history has shown it takes at least that much time. It took that much time for the republicans to push our country to the right as much as they have; it would take at least that long to push it back to the left.
gassit 10y ago
Your comment on open primaries is outrageously wrong. Clinton overwhelmingly won the open primaries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidentia...
- alexc05 10y ago
  I'm sorry, I inaccurately paraphrased - a more accurate statement would be that he appears to perform better in open primaries. You're right that Overwhelmingly well was a massive oversimplification and exaggeration. More accurate would be "appears to perform worse in closed primaries" http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11528764/closed-primaries-bernie-sanders http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11528764/closed-primaries-berni... https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/19/bernie-sanders-and-curse-closed-primary/gtDLk0FUqQZOFh33n6rYzM/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/19/bernie-... I can't see anything in your link that clearly indicates your position WRT clinton overwhelmingly winning open ones. Wiki does not list open primaries, her win proportion of those, or the 'goal difference' in terms of awarded delegates. So - I'm not sure your statement is entirely true either.
  - gassit 10y ago
    The Wiki link lists contest type, winner and margin. It is very easy to compare and see how each candidate has performed. The facts are, in open primaries Clinton has won 10-4. If you include semi-open it's 11-4. In closed primaries Clinton has won 8-1. If you include semi closed its 10-3. There is no meaningful difference. Sanders underperforms in all primary types. The only contest type Sanders has performed better in are caucuses, winning 11-4. These are the least democratic type of contest of them all.

by alexc05 10y ago

mahranch 10y ago

> I know that it's all very "tinfoil hat" sounding, but there are a number of places where the disparity is highly suspect. It is tinfoil hat sounding because it is tinfoil hat territory. I'm sorry, but the internet has made Sanders supporters lose touch with reality; Hillary Clinton, even at the very end, still beat Sanders by double digits (source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-d...). The Obama vs Clinton matchup was much, much closer. We're only talking a few point difference. I saw this same thing happen back in 2008 with Ron Paul. Paul supporters had a hard time believing that Paul didn't stand a chance. The reason Clinton trounced Sanders is multifaceted; First off, Sanders is old and he's Jewish. Unfortunately, that puts some people off right away (bigotry and prejudice is still alive and well in America). Secondly, he embraced the term Socialist. While people under 40 may be aware of what that term entails (we think of European/democratic socialism, not Russian/Chinese socialism) the older generation & boomers still thinks of the commies and pinkos. America is still 10-30 years away from using that word without the stigma & negative connotations. And that kind of sums up Sanders; he's espousing an ideology that America isn't quite ready for. We need to move further to the left a bit. Kind of like how the GOP has kept moving this country to the right over the last 35 years, we need to move it back to the center, and ultimately to the left. I'm a democratic socialist myself but even I knew Sanders didn't stand a chance. That's because I'm aware that it's going to take some time. Perhaps a couple decades. It starts with small steps, electing moderates who lean left, then finally left candidates like Sanders.

kiya0 10y ago
I dont think it needs to take that mucb time. Elizabeth Warren would have had a better shot than Sanders and would have still stood for a lot of the same stuff.
- mahranch 10y ago
  Well history has shown it takes at least that much time. It took that much time for the republicans to push our country to the right as much as they have; it would take at least that long to push it back to the left.

gassit 10y ago

Your comment on open primaries is outrageously wrong. Clinton overwhelmingly won the open primaries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidentia...

alexc05 10y ago
I'm sorry, I inaccurately paraphrased - a more accurate statement would be that he appears to perform better in open primaries. You're right that Overwhelmingly well was a massive oversimplification and exaggeration. More accurate would be "appears to perform worse in closed primaries" http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11528764/closed-primaries-bernie-sanders http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11528764/closed-primaries-berni... https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/19/bernie-sanders-and-curse-closed-primary/gtDLk0FUqQZOFh33n6rYzM/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/19/bernie-... I can't see anything in your link that clearly indicates your position WRT clinton overwhelmingly winning open ones. Wiki does not list open primaries, her win proportion of those, or the 'goal difference' in terms of awarded delegates. So - I'm not sure your statement is entirely true either.
- gassit 10y ago
  The Wiki link lists contest type, winner and margin. It is very easy to compare and see how each candidate has performed. The facts are, in open primaries Clinton has won 10-4. If you include semi-open it's 11-4. In closed primaries Clinton has won 8-1. If you include semi closed its 10-3. There is no meaningful difference. Sanders underperforms in all primary types. The only contest type Sanders has performed better in are caucuses, winning 11-4. These are the least democratic type of contest of them all.