Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

It was a good ride for Sanders

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 9:18:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
As the vote counting drags on in California, I've been thinking about Sanders. He's done - though he never really had a good chance. So these are my thoughts on the Democratic primary.

If the south didn't vote so early, the race would have been much closer. In the south, voters tended to be less aware of Sanders than they should have been. I think this was mostly because of how early these states finished compared to the other regions. If more people there knew who Sanders was - especially if he had the time to develop a good enough ground game with minorities there - this race would look a lot different.

Iowa and Nevada. Small margins meant that Clinton won 3 of the first 4 primaries and caucuses. If Nevada wasn't closed, Sanders probably would have won. I think that if Iowa was just a few days later, Sanders could have pulled enough voters on the edge through his campaigning to give him the win. If he wins three of the first four officially, more people would have taken notice of him as a strong challenger.

Closed primaries and caucuses that fvcked Sanders. I think the states that hurt him most with being closed were Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If they are open, the vote here might not be roughly 60-40. Instead, it might have been more like 55-45.

John Kasich fvcked him. In the open Ohio primary, Republican turnout was over twice the Democratic turnout. Why is this? I theorized at the time that a lot of people that would have voted Bernie in other states voted in the GOP Primary to vote for their governor. Because of this, Clinton won by more than she should have - and I doubted if she'd win at the time.

States he should have won, but didn't. He should have, in my opinion, won Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, New Mexico, and South Dakota. The demographics in those states favored him more than others, but campaign issues, bad turnout, and sometimes voter suppression (Arizona).

He should have done better. The path was there, but he didn't win. Is he really to blame though? Not really, but all in all, it is really disappointing. And the DNC should know that Clinton is not the better choice, but hey - I have no qualms staying independent of parties, and neither do many of Sanders supporters. They want loyalty to the party, but they've never reached out themselves. It took a 75 year old socialist atheist Jew from Vermont to get young left-wingers to participate. They just expect the young ones to vote Democrat over Republican anyway, so they don't care - and thus turnout for the millennials is low. And now, it will be pathetic with Clinton as the candidate, and Donald Trump will be President.

And they do not have the right to complain.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:06:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 9:18:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

Good read.

I disagree about the south only because they are more culturally averse to socialist policies.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:13:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 9:18:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
As the vote counting drags on in California, I've been thinking about Sanders. He's done - though he never really had a good chance. So these are my thoughts on the Democratic primary.

If the south didn't vote so early, the race would have been much closer. In the south, voters tended to be less aware of Sanders than they should have been. I think this was mostly because of how early these states finished compared to the other regions. If more people there knew who Sanders was - especially if he had the time to develop a good enough ground game with minorities there - this race would look a lot different.

Iowa and Nevada. Small margins meant that Clinton won 3 of the first 4 primaries and caucuses. If Nevada wasn't closed, Sanders probably would have won. I think that if Iowa was just a few days later, Sanders could have pulled enough voters on the edge through his campaigning to give him the win. If he wins three of the first four officially, more people would have taken notice of him as a strong challenger.

Closed primaries and caucuses that fvcked Sanders. I think the states that hurt him most with being closed were Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If they are open, the vote here might not be roughly 60-40. Instead, it might have been more like 55-45.

John Kasich fvcked him. In the open Ohio primary, Republican turnout was over twice the Democratic turnout. Why is this? I theorized at the time that a lot of people that would have voted Bernie in other states voted in the GOP Primary to vote for their governor. Because of this, Clinton won by more than she should have - and I doubted if she'd win at the time.

States he should have won, but didn't. He should have, in my opinion, won Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, New Mexico, and South Dakota. The demographics in those states favored him more than others, but campaign issues, bad turnout, and sometimes voter suppression (Arizona).

He should have done better. The path was there, but he didn't win. Is he really to blame though? Not really, but all in all, it is really disappointing. And the DNC should know that Clinton is not the better choice, but hey - I have no qualms staying independent of parties, and neither do many of Sanders supporters. They want loyalty to the party, but they've never reached out themselves. It took a 75 year old socialist atheist Jew from Vermont to get young left-wingers to participate. They just expect the young ones to vote Democrat over Republican anyway, so they don't care - and thus turnout for the millennials is low. And now, it will be pathetic with Clinton as the candidate, and Donald Trump will be President.

And they do not have the right to complain.

I agree. I have other thoughts, but no energy to deal with it. Point is, Sanders did a hell of a job with a run that should have been dead by super-Tuesday. Clinton has been a weak candidate start to finish. The sad thing is, Sanders showed an alternative without ever really shining a light on Clinton's most glaring flaws - that is not good for the general.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:16:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:13:23 PM, TBR wrote:

I agree. I have other thoughts, but no energy to deal with it. Point is, Sanders did a hell of a job with a run that should have been dead by super-Tuesday. Clinton has been a weak candidate start to finish. The sad thing is, Sanders showed an alternative without ever really shining a light on Clinton's most glaring flaws - that is not good for the general.

You touched on the thing about Bernie that would have been kryptonite against Trump. He has a lot..a LOT of positive draws. Hillary has none. So if Trump has the weakest draws regarding the economy and immigration, Trump simply wins by default vs Hillary.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:26:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:06:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/8/2016 9:18:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:


Good read.

I disagree about the south only because they are more culturally averse to socialist policies.

Of course. But, margins wouldn't have been as bad as 85-15 in the Bible Belt. The little things add up.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:35:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:16:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:13:23 PM, TBR wrote:

I agree. I have other thoughts, but no energy to deal with it. Point is, Sanders did a hell of a job with a run that should have been dead by super-Tuesday. Clinton has been a weak candidate start to finish. The sad thing is, Sanders showed an alternative without ever really shining a light on Clinton's most glaring flaws - that is not good for the general.

You touched on the thing about Bernie that would have been kryptonite against Trump. He has a lot..a LOT of positive draws. Hillary has none. So if Trump has the weakest draws regarding the economy and immigration, Trump simply wins by default vs Hillary.

It's funny. Establishment supporters of Clinton always said Sanders can't be the nominee because "he only does well with whites". Well, what is Clinton polling whites at vs Trump? One poll I saw had her at 33% of the white vote...in a white majority country...with very important white swing states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Florida). That doesn't bode well for her if she can't get Obama-level turnout (or perhaps even better) among minorities.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 4:12:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:13:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 9:18:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
As the vote counting drags on in California, I've been thinking about Sanders. He's done - though he never really had a good chance. So these are my thoughts on the Democratic primary.

If the south didn't vote so early, the race would have been much closer. In the south, voters tended to be less aware of Sanders than they should have been. I think this was mostly because of how early these states finished compared to the other regions. If more people there knew who Sanders was - especially if he had the time to develop a good enough ground game with minorities there - this race would look a lot different.

Iowa and Nevada. Small margins meant that Clinton won 3 of the first 4 primaries and caucuses. If Nevada wasn't closed, Sanders probably would have won. I think that if Iowa was just a few days later, Sanders could have pulled enough voters on the edge through his campaigning to give him the win. If he wins three of the first four officially, more people would have taken notice of him as a strong challenger.

Closed primaries and caucuses that fvcked Sanders. I think the states that hurt him most with being closed were Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If they are open, the vote here might not be roughly 60-40. Instead, it might have been more like 55-45.

John Kasich fvcked him. In the open Ohio primary, Republican turnout was over twice the Democratic turnout. Why is this? I theorized at the time that a lot of people that would have voted Bernie in other states voted in the GOP Primary to vote for their governor. Because of this, Clinton won by more than she should have - and I doubted if she'd win at the time.

States he should have won, but didn't. He should have, in my opinion, won Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, New Mexico, and South Dakota. The demographics in those states favored him more than others, but campaign issues, bad turnout, and sometimes voter suppression (Arizona).

He should have done better. The path was there, but he didn't win. Is he really to blame though? Not really, but all in all, it is really disappointing. And the DNC should know that Clinton is not the better choice, but hey - I have no qualms staying independent of parties, and neither do many of Sanders supporters. They want loyalty to the party, but they've never reached out themselves. It took a 75 year old socialist atheist Jew from Vermont to get young left-wingers to participate. They just expect the young ones to vote Democrat over Republican anyway, so they don't care - and thus turnout for the millennials is low. And now, it will be pathetic with Clinton as the candidate, and Donald Trump will be President.

And they do not have the right to complain.

I agree. I have other thoughts, but no energy to deal with it.

Just a note: I wrote this at 5 AM after being awake for 23 hours, and before that I only slept one hour.

There might be cause for concern there, but if the thread was coherent then I'm all good.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 5:01:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 3:16:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:13:23 PM, TBR wrote:

I agree. I have other thoughts, but no energy to deal with it. Point is, Sanders did a hell of a job with a run that should have been dead by super-Tuesday. Clinton has been a weak candidate start to finish. The sad thing is, Sanders showed an alternative without ever really shining a light on Clinton's most glaring flaws - that is not good for the general.

You touched on the thing about Bernie that would have been kryptonite against Trump. He has a lot..a LOT of positive draws. Hillary has none. So if Trump has the weakest draws regarding the economy and immigration, Trump simply wins by default vs Hillary.

Trump can and will run negative (he has nothing else really), but it will not come close to enough. Point is, we would have had an easier time with a Jew who calls himself a socialists - that is saying something.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 5:23:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'm just happy that degenerate lost.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:11:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 5:01:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:16:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/8/2016 3:13:23 PM, TBR wrote:

I agree. I have other thoughts, but no energy to deal with it. Point is, Sanders did a hell of a job with a run that should have been dead by super-Tuesday. Clinton has been a weak candidate start to finish. The sad thing is, Sanders showed an alternative without ever really shining a light on Clinton's most glaring flaws - that is not good for the general.

You touched on the thing about Bernie that would have been kryptonite against Trump. He has a lot..a LOT of positive draws. Hillary has none. So if Trump has the weakest draws regarding the economy and immigration, Trump simply wins by default vs Hillary.

Trump can and will run negative (he has nothing else really), but it will not come close to enough. Point is, we would have had an easier time with a Jew who calls himself a socialists - that is saying something.

An atheist Jew at that.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:23:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:06:52 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/8/2016 5:23:04 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I'm just happy that degenerate lost.

As if Clinton is any less of a degenerate?

She's much smarter than he is and is much more rational with her policies, as much of a liar that she is. Moderates are better than socialist morons Bernie.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:24:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:23:05 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:06:52 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/8/2016 5:23:04 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I'm just happy that degenerate lost.

As if Clinton is any less of a degenerate?

She's much smarter than he is and is much more rational with her policies, as much of a liar that she is. Moderates are better than socialist morons Bernie.

> moderate
> clinton
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:24:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:24:12 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:23:05 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:06:52 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/8/2016 5:23:04 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I'm just happy that degenerate lost.

As if Clinton is any less of a degenerate?

She's much smarter than he is and is much more rational with her policies, as much of a liar that she is. Moderates are better than socialist morons Bernie.

> moderate
> clinton

Compared to sanders she is.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:26:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:24:58 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:24:12 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:23:05 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:06:52 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/8/2016 5:23:04 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I'm just happy that degenerate lost.

As if Clinton is any less of a degenerate?

She's much smarter than he is and is much more rational with her policies, as much of a liar that she is. Moderates are better than socialist morons Bernie.

> moderate
> clinton

Compared to sanders she is.

Well I guess so. Sanders would probably have had a good chance at beating her if he wasn't such a far-left semi-socialist.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:44:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Intellectual honesty is appreciated.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 8:34:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:26:45 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:24:58 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:24:12 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:23:05 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/8/2016 6:06:52 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/8/2016 5:23:04 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
I'm just happy that degenerate lost.

As if Clinton is any less of a degenerate?

She's much smarter than he is and is much more rational with her policies, as much of a liar that she is. Moderates are better than socialist morons Bernie.

> moderate
> clinton

Compared to sanders she is.

Well I guess so. Sanders would probably have had a good chance at beating her if he wasn't such a far-left semi-socialist.

"Semi-socialist". Sanders referred to his state as "the people's republic of Vermont".
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 12:51:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 9:18:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
As the vote counting drags on in California, I've been thinking about Sanders. He's done - though he never really had a good chance. So these are my thoughts on the Democratic primary.

If the south didn't vote so early, the race would have been much closer. In the south, voters tended to be less aware of Sanders than they should have been. I think this was mostly because of how early these states finished compared to the other regions. If more people there knew who Sanders was - especially if he had the time to develop a good enough ground game with minorities there - this race would look a lot different.

Iowa and Nevada. Small margins meant that Clinton won 3 of the first 4 primaries and caucuses. If Nevada wasn't closed, Sanders probably would have won. I think that if Iowa was just a few days later, Sanders could have pulled enough voters on the edge through his campaigning to give him the win. If he wins three of the first four officially, more people would have taken notice of him as a strong challenger.

Closed primaries and caucuses that fvcked Sanders. I think the states that hurt him most with being closed were Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If they are open, the vote here might not be roughly 60-40. Instead, it might have been more like 55-45.

John Kasich fvcked him. In the open Ohio primary, Republican turnout was over twice the Democratic turnout. Why is this? I theorized at the time that a lot of people that would have voted Bernie in other states voted in the GOP Primary to vote for their governor. Because of this, Clinton won by more than she should have - and I doubted if she'd win at the time.

States he should have won, but didn't. He should have, in my opinion, won Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, New Mexico, and South Dakota. The demographics in those states favored him more than others, but campaign issues, bad turnout, and sometimes voter suppression (Arizona).

He should have done better. The path was there, but he didn't win. Is he really to blame though? Not really, but all in all, it is really disappointing. And the DNC should know that Clinton is not the better choice, but hey - I have no qualms staying independent of parties, and neither do many of Sanders supporters. They want loyalty to the party, but they've never reached out themselves. It took a 75 year old socialist atheist Jew from Vermont to get young left-wingers to participate. They just expect the young ones to vote Democrat over Republican anyway, so they don't care - and thus turnout for the millennials is low. And now, it will be pathetic with Clinton as the candidate, and Donald Drumpf will be President.

And they do not have the right to complain.

Very good read.
Meh!
vortex86
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2016 6:14:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
http://www.latimes.com...

2.5 million California votes uncounted

Six million ballots have already been counted from the statewide primary. The uncounted tally would push total voter turnout to about 8.5 million.

CaliforniaJune 71,940,5801,502,043Clinton +438,537

So 3.4 million votes for Bernie and Sanders and about 34k for alternative candidates. So 6 million counted and only 3.4 counted. so 2.6 thrown out and 2.5 million not counted yet....

Thoughts?
BlueParagon
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 5:58:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 9:18:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
As the vote counting drags on in California, I've been thinking about Sanders. He's done - though he never really had a good chance. So these are my thoughts on the Democratic primary.

If the south didn't vote so early, the race would have been much closer. In the south, voters tended to be less aware of Sanders than they should have been. I think this was mostly because of how early these states finished compared to the other regions. If more people there knew who Sanders was - especially if he had the time to develop a good enough ground game with minorities there - this race would look a lot different.

Iowa and Nevada. Small margins meant that Clinton won 3 of the first 4 primaries and caucuses. If Nevada wasn't closed, Sanders probably would have won. I think that if Iowa was just a few days later, Sanders could have pulled enough voters on the edge through his campaigning to give him the win. If he wins three of the first four officially, more people would have taken notice of him as a strong challenger.

Closed primaries and caucuses that fvcked Sanders. I think the states that hurt him most with being closed were Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If they are open, the vote here might not be roughly 60-40. Instead, it might have been more like 55-45.

John Kasich fvcked him. In the open Ohio primary, Republican turnout was over twice the Democratic turnout. Why is this? I theorized at the time that a lot of people that would have voted Bernie in other states voted in the GOP Primary to vote for their governor. Because of this, Clinton won by more than she should have - and I doubted if she'd win at the time.

States he should have won, but didn't. He should have, in my opinion, won Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, New Mexico, and South Dakota. The demographics in those states favored him more than others, but campaign issues, bad turnout, and sometimes voter suppression (Arizona).

He should have done better. The path was there, but he didn't win. Is he really to blame though? Not really, but all in all, it is really disappointing. And the DNC should know that Clinton is not the better choice, but hey - I have no qualms staying independent of parties, and neither do many of Sanders supporters. They want loyalty to the party, but they've never reached out themselves. It took a 75 year old socialist atheist Jew from Vermont to get young left-wingers to participate. They just expect the young ones to vote Democrat over Republican anyway, so they don't care - and thus turnout for the millennials is low. And now, it will be pathetic with Clinton as the candidate, and Donald Drumpf will be President.

And they do not have the right to complain.

Good read.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 6:50:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 8:34:37 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
"Semi-socialist". Sanders referred to his state as "the people's republic of Vermont".

Sanders isn't a socialist or extremist. He just calls himself that. The American political spectrum has drifted to the right so much that the US isn't able to distinguish between "progressive" and "extremist." Socialism entails that the public entirely controls production. He has some socialistic policies (e.g. universal health care), but he isn't abolishing private corporations or anything.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass