Quote :

"Al Gore would have won, regardless, if he was a better candidate."

and if Florida wasn't a fucking trainwreck

3/7/2016 9:45:17 PM

He won the popular vote... He may not have been a great candidate, but he definitely got a raw deal, and those who voted for Nader probably regretted it if they were truly liberal to begin with. Or at least they should have. At any rate, the Electoral College is a joke and should have been abolished a long time ago. As a liberal, it's been working out in my favor in recent elections, but I still think it's an absolutely ridiculous way to elect the president of the free world.

3/7/2016 9:48:29 PM

I agree with that. I also think that 51 percent voter turnout is a ridiculous way to elect the president of the free world.

3/7/2016 9:59:36 PM

What would be a better way?

3/7/2016 10:11:06 PM

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

Something similar to this

3/7/2016 10:13:19 PM

[Edited on March 7, 2016 at 10:19 PM. Reason : -]

3/7/2016 10:19:01 PM

we can't even count as it is how the hell do you expect florida to properly analyze an alternative vote

3/7/2016 11:40:15 PM

The problem now is the lack of a runoff of any kind, but if there were to be a runoff, we'd want it to be done automatically without holding a second election day.

Bush won Florida in 2000 by 537 votes, but still only had 48.847%. In a real election, a candidate has to get 50% of the votes plus one otherwise there has to be a runoff. If that had happened in Florida in 2000, there would have been 138,000 votes to redistribute. 97,000 of those were for Nader. Hell, the 622 votes from the Socialist party or 562 from the other socialist party would have been enough to swing it.

3/8/2016 12:26:54 AM

Quote :

"Several people in this very thread have said that if Clinton gets the nomination instead of Sanders, they'll vote third party just to spite her. If they abstain, it essentially has a similar effect. How is this a difficult concept to understand?"

How is that Sanders fault? If that happens it has nothing to do with Sanders z it's the fault of Clinton supporters in the primary and whomever the third party candidate is. That's why your comparison bro Nader is fucking retarded.

3/8/2016 5:32:47 AM

If you want to compare Sanders to Bill Bradley or Lyndon LaRouche and say that one of them is the reason that Gore lost in the general, knock yourself out

3/8/2016 7:53:01 AM

That's OK. I made my point and it seems like everyone else got it, and we've since moved on. At this point you're just being a cunt.

3/8/2016 11:56:55 AM

Bill Bradley was destroyed by Gore, and Gore lost the general. Obama had a long, tough fight against Hillary, and it made him stronger for the general.

Hillary didn't drop out until June 7, while Bradley was gone by March 9.

3/8/2016 12:05:55 PM

Quote :

"Several people in this very thread have said that if Clinton gets the nomination instead of Sanders, they'll vote third party just to spite her. If they abstain, it essentially has a similar effect. How is this a difficult concept to understand?"

while this may be true...1) a lot of it strikes me as completely anecdotal - is it really a significant amount of people saying (and then come November, actually doing it)? and 2) there some similar stuff going on the in the Republican race. people saying they'll simply vote third party or not at all if Trump gets the nomination. i think it's difficult to determine the true impact that behavior would have...especially this early when, to my knowledge, there's no polling or anything to measure just how many of these people exist.

3/8/2016 1:02:23 PM

I won't vote for Clinton in the general, but I'm not sure how that's the fault of Sanders in a primary

3/8/2016 1:19:47 PM

Hillary is a liar and her supporters seem to be generally disgusting people based on my interactions with them.

So ya I don't plan to vote for her. If that means Trump wins oh well. Maybe candidates will reconsider how they conduct themselves next time. Prob not.

3/8/2016 1:39:32 PM

Quote :

"while this may be true...1) a lot of it strikes me as completely anecdotal - is it really a significant amount of people saying (and then come November, actually doing it)? and 2) there some similar stuff going on the in the Republican race. people saying they'll simply vote third party or not at all if Trump gets the nomination. i think it's difficult to determine the true impact that behavior would have...especially this early when, to my knowledge, there's no polling or anything to measure just how many of these people exist."

You're right. There isn't an accurate or reliable metric to measure these type of voters. My point, and perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, is that a lot Sanders supporters weren't around to vote in 2000, so they may not have considered the consequences of voting third party (whoever that may be remains to be seen) or abstaining to spite Hillary. I've said multiple times that I think Clinton is a pretty terrible person, but I know that our election system is essentially a two party system due to the Electoral College, and I will hold my nose and vote Democrat to prevent a disaster like a Donald Trump presidency from happening. Perhaps the logical leap required to understand this is a tough sell, but I thought it was an interesting point, and one that many Sanders supporters might not have considered.

3/8/2016 1:46:31 PM

so back to this then:

Quote :

"compare Sanders to Bill Bradley or Lyndon LaRouche and say that one of them is the reason that Gore lost in the general"

3/8/2016 1:48:25 PM

^^Sounds like they have and just don't care (see adultswim). Baffling to me that you'd risk having Cruz or Trump in the white house, nominating conservative supreme court judges because you don't like people who support Hilary.

Even though I don't think most of Bernie's proposals will be permitted in office, I'd still vote for him, no questions asked, against Cruz or Trump.

3/8/2016 2:13:15 PM

Quote :

"Baffling to me that you'd risk having Cruz or Drumpf in the white house, nominating conservative supreme court judges because you don't like people who support Hilary."

+1

3/8/2016 2:22:12 PM

+2

3/8/2016 2:27:45 PM

i'll clarify that my not voting for Clinton is because of her record and policy positions

[Edited on March 8, 2016 at 2:28 PM. Reason : Ted Cruz would maybe make me vote for her, not Trump though]

3/8/2016 2:28:14 PM

Did you miss the first part? I'm not voting for another liar who says one thing and does another behind our backs. I'd rather see Trump wreak havoc and maybe inspire people to get more involved.

3/8/2016 2:28:16 PM

Quote :

"'m not voting for another liar who says one thing and does another behind our backs"

dude. that's all politicians, especially those at this level.

3/8/2016 2:31:05 PM

When, in this election period, has Sanders flat out lied to voters or blatantly misrepresented his opponent's positions?

3/8/2016 2:34:02 PM

You guys vote for whoever you want. I'll vote for the candidates I respect and agree with. If that makes my vote a throwaway, it's only a reflection of our election system, the lack of instant runoff.

3/8/2016 2:37:44 PM

Quote :

"Baffling to me that you'd risk having Cruz or Drumpf in the white house, nominating conservative supreme court judges because you don't like people who support Hilary"

does anyone really believe Trump would nominate a conservative supreme court justice of the same caliper as Cruz?

3/8/2016 2:39:08 PM

Quote :

"When, in this election period, has Sanders flat out lied to voters"

Quote :

""NAFTA, supported by the Secretary (Clinton), cost us 800,000 jobs nationwide.""

Quote :

""Not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real.""

Quote :

""Almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton.""

Quote :

"The Koch Brothers are "spending more money than either the Democratic or Republican parties" in the 2016 elections."

Quote :

""We spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country.""

Quote :

""(Texas Republicans) believe in abolishing Social Security, abolishing V.A. health care.""

Quote :

""Poverty levels (are) at an all-time high.""

Quote :

""We now work the longest hours of any people around the world.""

Quote :

""Last year, ExxonMobil made $19 billion in profit. Guess what. They paid zero in taxes. They got a $156 million refund from the IRS.""

Quote :

""We spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation on Earth.""

[Edited on March 8, 2016 at 2:43 PM. Reason : ^ who the fuck knows who Drumpf would elect, or what CALIBER? ]

[Edited on March 8, 2016 at 2:47 PM. Reason : But yeah, the Bern is definitely better than most at this level when it comes to dirtiness ]

[Edited on March 8, 2016 at 2:47 PM. Reason : Doesn't mean I want Cruz filling multiple justice spots though]

3/8/2016 2:39:17 PM

I looked through some of those. He provides reasoning and sources behind his remarks. Sometimes the sources are inaccurate, sometimes he's referring to a different number than Politifact, etc. But he does correct himself when he's shown to be wrong.

Not even on the same plane as Hillary saying he hasn't given funding proposals for his plans, or that he wants to take away people's healthcare. Flat out lies.


[Edited on March 8, 2016 at 2:55 PM. Reason : Sp]

3/8/2016 2:51:26 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like they have and just don't care (see adultswim). Baffling to me that you'd risk having Cruz or Trump in the white house, nominating conservative supreme court judges because you don't like people who support Hilary. Even though I don't think most of Bernie's proposals will be permitted in office, I'd still vote for him, no questions asked, against Cruz or Trump."

+3

FWIW, If Sanders makes it to the CA primary, I'd vote him over Hillary. But let's be real. He will be done long before then.

3/8/2016 3:37:56 PM

Quote :

" It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others. ... I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation, especially in the United States, and most recently found a prominent place in the speeches of Mr Blair. The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033. "

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

Pretty much what's happening now. People realize that the things our society places monetary value on don't work for the society as a whole, and need things to change.

3/8/2016 3:39:12 PM

^^
Well I appreciate you saying that.

And also I don't know if my view will change come the general. We'll see how terrifying things get. My current opinion is that the country needs some kind of revolution, either with Sanders or against Trump. Big changes come from big messes.

[Edited on March 8, 2016 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2016 3:43:42 PM

Gook take on Bernie's race comments:
https://www.facebook.com/revoltTV/videos/1038545639552563/

3/8/2016 5:30:17 PM

i don't like sanders because i think virtually everything he is campaigning on is wholly unobtainable. and i think he would be worse than obama at foreign policy, which is saying something.

but I would vote for him in a heartbeat if he were the democratic candidate. hell, the stakes are so high, I'd probably donate and look into volunteering.

but i appreciate the petulance from some of you. it's...enlightening

[Edited on March 8, 2016 at 9:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2016 9:05:58 PM

Quote :

"Gook take"

If I either wanted to make you seem like a bad person or was just an idiot I'd call you a racist for using this word. However, I'm smart enough to know you meant a different word and I won't hold it against you. Because that's what intelligent people do.

[Edited on March 8, 2016 at 9:28 PM. Reason : -]

3/8/2016 9:27:04 PM

http://pic.twitter.com/FxAGRRwvow

He'll be in Raleigh on Friday. If it's anything like Denver was, get there 2 hrs early if you want to get in.

[Edited on March 9, 2016 at 4:25 PM. Reason : link]

3/9/2016 4:25:05 PM

Quote :

"Hillary has 60% of the vote so far, but only 20% of the vote has been cast. So really the score in the race to 51 is Hillary on top 12-8. 300 delegates, or 7.5% are up for grabs from March 5-8."

"Score" is now 17-12 (total of 29% of pledged delegates have been decided).

697 delegates up for grabs between now and March 15, or 17% of the total pledged delegates. Bernie needs to add 9 points to his score (369 delagates) to continue gaining ground. He would need 451 delegates to pull even (he won't, but he doesn't need to yet).

3/9/2016 6:34:34 PM

just as a reminder, the "score" talked started over popular vote (as a rebuttal to the "will of the people" statement someone made about superdelegates)

She has 60% of the popular vote (59.9972% if you wanna get picky), a slight tick up from your score of 58.6%.

And that's with ~37% of the popular vote in

[Edited on March 10, 2016 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2016 9:49:16 AM

So we can compare later, according to 538:

Florida: >99% Hillary
Illinois: >99% Hillary
NC: >99% Hillary
Ohio: 98% Hillary

3/10/2016 12:35:38 PM

Quote :

"According to our final polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton had a greater than 99% chance of winning the Michigan primary."

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/

[Edited on March 10, 2016 at 1:15 PM. Reason : ^^ who cares about the popular vote??]

3/10/2016 1:11:47 PM

Yeah, 538 lost a lot of credibility with that call.

3/10/2016 1:41:37 PM

^
Every pollster did. I only saw one person call it correctly, and that was a r/Sanders poster who is taking into account ground game investment by the campaign.

3/10/2016 1:46:59 PM

easy way to increase voter turnout for whoever wants to help:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49um9m/the_definitive_facebanking_guide_step_by_step/

3/10/2016 2:31:24 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, 538 lost a lot of credibility with that call."

I don't understand this--no forecaster is right every time. FiveThirtyEight has a proven methodology for collating polls. How does a single result change that?

3/10/2016 3:14:37 PM

Because even when 538 is wrong, they are not magnitudes wrong.

3/10/2016 3:27:32 PM

538 isn't the one doing the polling.

if I gave you a dataset that had 25 data points, had an average return of 5 with a min of 2 and a max of 7 and asked you to estimate what number might next be the next data point selected, and then the number was 85, you don't lose credibility because your guess of 6 was 79 off the actual result

3/10/2016 3:50:29 PM

Meh.

Those projections are based on polls, which were deeply flawed. I blame the polls.

[Edited on March 10, 2016 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ^^]

3/10/2016 3:51:02 PM

I agree, but moving forward either the polls need to change or 538 needs to start taking in other data. Social media activity, Google searches, etc.

3/10/2016 4:01:00 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, 538 lost a lot of credibility with that call. "

Ha nope. Polling is inherently a flawed process, so it's a miracle they are right 90% of the time...

3/10/2016 4:33:16 PM

The only people talking shit about 538 are the blind Bernie supporters who think the media is out to get them. 538 is going to be wrong from time to time, no model is perfect and polling has its flaws.

3/10/2016 5:09:25 PM

^

3/10/2016 5:14:25 PM