-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPR: Bernie Sanders staying in the race 'Until The Last Vote Is Cast'
- Thread starter Wiz
- Start date
- Status
jack_package_200
Banned
They say a picture is worth a thousand words
UsUncut is a fucking joke.
hydragonwarrior
Member
I want #dropouttrump to trend too, just to see how popular it gets
Thunder Monkey
Banned
What I see when I look at Hillary Clintons career is that of a Democratic Senator from New York. I don't see sweetheart deals that favor Wall-Street. I see the political reality of being the Senator of one of the largest and most diverse states in the country.
Her work as SoS was exemplary. As first lady she fought for an overhaul to our decrepit and amoral health care system. She argued abroad for women's rights. She's been tied to some of her husbands 90's agenda, but aside from being a spokesperson for... I find it hard to fault her, for her husbands failures.
She's a career politician. Willing to bend at public opinion. Always meting and moderating herself to be inoffensive to anyone.
I don't think these charges his campaign have made are merited. Either have the facts when you make the charge, or keep your mouth shut.
Aaronology
Member
Prodigal, you're actually going to sit there and pretend Bernie's campaign emails have not been calling Clinton a criminal and a money launderer, as recently as last week!? Nevermind the Emily's List fiasco last month! But sure, let's accuse other people of lying and, you know, blatantly ignore the reality of Sanders' descent into negativity and hypocrisy.
Edit: Oh gods. Am I tired of this "No one is excited for Clinton" shit. A hell of a lot of people were plenty excited to overwhelmingly vote for her instead of Bernie Sanders. I was one of them.
darkside31337
Tomodachi wa Mahou
Because a guy who doesn't even deserve to be named on HuffPo wrote a stupid article about Hillary and has been the entire cycle refusing to come to grips on the fact that Hillary is going to be the nominee.
Because when your candidate cant actually win a fair democratic election the only way to get him the nomination is through a hashtag and bullying people who support the other candidate.
There is no realistically other way for Bernie to get the party nomination now other than Hillary deciding to drop out.
It was the only source I could find, but at this point I'm finding the shitty attitude of hardcore Bernie supporters to be a bigger joke. Which is sad because I do agree with Sanders message and most of his views.
Prodigal Son
Member
Yes. Bill's presidency did have some serious failings. Those failings weren't all the result of Republican obstructionism either. Her support for many of those failings (and her current defense for much of that support) is what Bernie and his surrogates are harping on right now.
Being an opinion-bending career politician is fine but understand it's not what many American voters want for their next president.
Why don't you consider what I said in context? The poster I responded to claimed that everything Sanders says recently is negative. That obviously isn't the case. If you use media-headlines as your representation of what the Sanders campaign's rhetoric is right now, you're in no position to talk about what he should be saying more of or less of.
You and I both know you're intelligent enough to understand that just because a candidate received more votes than another candidate, doesn't mean their base is excited. Turnout is largely down and you'd be quick to point that out if I was spouting this and that about a 'revolution.'
Fenderputty
Banned
I got a Bernie email yesterday about the laundering bullshit. This was after I had already unsubscribe to his emails.
excelsiorlef
Member
Exactly. Clinton showed up. Sanders bought a lot of expensive ads (quite likely from Tad Devine's ad company) and paid for ineffective robo calls that included telling Black Clinton leading supporters that they should vote for Sanders because.... he supports welfare.
Aaronology
Member
Media headlines? Do you even follow your own candidate? It's his own goddamn email correspondence, Prodigal. Directly from his campaign to supporters, people in his mailing lists and those who have donated to him. Three groups I use to be a part of all. Why are you so quick to defend Bernie Sanders when it appears you aren't even aware of his campaign's activity?
Edit: Like, seriously, it's a press release on his site. How much deflecting are we going to do now?
Since popular votes apparently don't matter show me what data you're drawing from that leads you to believe no one is excited for Hillary Clinton, yet are for Sanders and Trump.
jack_package_200
Banned
Like I said earlier. He didn't even try to court minority groups. He has no real excuse for getting creamed in many of those so called "low information voter" states in the south.
Also I find it baffling that people take Tad Devine seriously.
shinra-bansho
Member
Wait, we prefer less liberal Biden, who still recently called the omnibus crime bill the Biden bill and who hails from the credit card and evil tax haven of Delaware why exactly? Because of his creepy yet endearing old man perviness?
Prodigal Son
Member
Yes, I'm well aware of his campaign activity. I didn't assume the media headlines came out of no-where. They're reporting whatever is worthy of note that his campaign has been saying. That obviously doesn't mean that is all his campaign has been saying.
His campaign has been about more than just attacking Clinton. That's it. That's all the post you quoted was intended to establish. I responded to a person who made a factually incorrect claim regarding the nature of the Sander's campaign and corrected them. I was not, in that post, defending whatever negativity exists in the Sander's campaign. I am simply pointing out that there is more than just that negativity and that is clearly apparent.
Yeah. Popular vote doesn't matter if you're discussing excitement and you know that obviously. Why is the excitement for Clinton low? Because Turnout among dems is low. This is particularly the case in closed primaries, where turnout has largely been quite poor.
And off topic, but I know who you're responding to. It's a forum. Everything we say is clearly categorized and assorted. You don't have to address me by name in every post. I thought you should know that.
'We' are individuals. I spoke only of my own preference. I didn't speak for a 'we.'
Truth.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Excitement means fuckall if you can't get the asses in the booth.
JesseEwiak
Member
If excitement for Clinton is low, what does that make excitement for Sanders - unmeasurable? Clinton's like Call of Duty - nobody seems to like her, but she keeps ending up on top. Go visit some African American churches or Hispanic communities or women who have worked in the corporate world for decades dealing with sexism. Maybe if you get out of your bubble, you'll find some excitement.
hammysaurusrex
Member
Things are looking great, we just need to swap our democratic reliance on votes for dank memes and trending hashtags!
Any time talk of "excitement" comes up, it reminds me of football games where the losers are pointing at stats like turnover margin while the winners point at.. the actual score.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
A nonfactor.
It means nothing if this excitement doesn't lead to the voting booth, or caucus site.
I know nothing of football...
So I'll just sit here and nod in agreement.
excelsiorlef
Member
People are dumb on the Internet in large numbers
Prodigal Son
Member
You do know how this works and what we're talking about right? Excitement in a voter base has nothing to do with who has the majority. No one here is disputing that Clinton has the majority.
shinra-bansho
Member
So what is the measure. Number of dank memes?
Clinton's voters are nearly dead they don't have time to learn to tweet.
Clinton's voters are nearly dead they don't have time to learn to tweet.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Then it shouldn't be a factor.
At least not a deciding one. Barack in 2008 had excitement fueling his campaign, and results.
Hillary might not have the ephemeral "excitement" but she does have the more important part of a campaign. The ability to turn out voters.
excelsiorlef
Member
Hell his camp blamed the DNC for "allowing" them to steal data and pretended that the independent inquiry vindicated them... quite the opposite but they had to make up some reason to justify dropping a suit they knew they were gonna lose embarrassingly.
And in the subject of Emily's List, it shows that he learned nothing from the PP and HRC fiasco. Hell if anything it just reinforces that he truly believes any group that doesn't outright endorse him is unclean
jack_package_200
Banned
Number of birds, obviously.
hammysaurusrex
Member
The question really isn't how much more exciting is Sanders than Clinton - since the only metric that matters is votes since they are in an election against each other.
The more interesting question is - how does Sanders "excitement" measure up to the long list of previous failed populist candidates who came proclaiming a similar revolution? His campaign is certainly unique in a lot of ways, but overall all signs point to non-factor.
The more interesting question is - how does Sanders "excitement" measure up to the long list of previous failed populist candidates who came proclaiming a similar revolution? His campaign is certainly unique in a lot of ways, but overall all signs point to non-factor.
Prodigal Son
Member
Voter Turnout.
You can't keep deflecting the democrat's shit numbers by saying 'b-b-but Bernie lost.' No shit.
Where are the swarms that came in for Obama? Where is young America like they turned out for Obama? Many don't give a shit and stayed home. That is the reality of your candidate. You can't defend that by saying the same applies to Bernie. It doesn't change that it still applies to Clinton.
JesseEwiak
Member
Enough they still didn't give a shit to turnout to beat Hillary, so there wasn't that much excitement for him. Anecdotal evidence, but it sure seems like it'll turn out a lot of those massive crowds were basically the same few thousand college kids following Bernie around like a Phish tour in each region of the country.
I don't care about primary turnout as it has no connection to general election turnout.
excelsiorlef
Member
Agreed. I just really want to make it clear that Clinton has put in an amazing level of ground wirk and has earned it... it's not just because Sanders said meh fuck the South (which he didn't in SC, despite his claims that they didn't try he out spent her there)
1. It's Paul Begala, not Regala.
2. He's more than a "known Clinton supporter". He's a Clinton insider of the first order, having been a chief strategist for Bill back in the early 1990s.
3. That was a really uninteresting piece.
4. I still like Begala, he's a funny guy.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Technically...
Hillary should be pretty close (give or take a million and a half votes) to her 2008 number of 17.5 million votes.
The difference this time is that the race is nowhere near as competitive. Last time both the winner and the competition received 17+ million votes. This time around Hillary should have 15-16 million votes, while the competition will have between 12-13 million votes.
Prodigal Son
Member
It find it hilarious that the only argument to the reality that Democrats aren't that excited for Hillary like they were for Obama related to Sanders. This isn't a pro-Sanders argument. It's a statement of fact about Hillary.
The Republican voter turnout is way up.
Democratic voter turnout is way down.
I'm sorry you don't like that.
Yeah, man. All what you just said, in unison with the reality that the voterbase is larger now than it was in 2008 just means voter turnout is way down. That's bad for us, dude.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
There's been a loss on the Hillary side from 2008.
But again... the real reason Dem turnout is lower... is because there isn't real competition.
makingmusic476
Member
I'm a Bernie guy, but fuuuuck some of his supporters are obnoxious.
JesseEwiak
Member
No, it's not.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/
Primary turnout is largely based on how competitive the nomination race is seen and how many candidates there are. The vast majority of Democrat's assumed Hillary is going to win or didn't really care who won between Hillary and Bernie or never heard there was a Democratic primary because Trump was on TV every twelve seconds.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I question if it's bad, or just the reality that this race had nowhere near the fire of 2008, because the options last time were "First black/female president". This time "First female" and then an old angry Socialist Jewish grandpa.
Doesn't have the same punch.
Prodigal Son
Member
No real basis for this claim but sure. This entire thread has been competition. Anecdotal, I know but things were plenty heated between Bernie and Hillary.
I appreciate your theory regarding why people aren't voting all that much for Clinton but it doesn't change that people aren't voting all that much for Clinton. If people were excited about her, they wouldn't just stay home when the Socialist Jew started making her sweat earlier this year.
Please, emphasize that the same doubly applies to Sanders.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
The basis is that one candidate is going to end up with 3+ million more votes than the other.
Last time there were only thousands of votes separating them.
edit: Roughly on par with her 2008 showing, which was the single largest primary season Democrats have had.
Prodigal Son
Member
Haven't you just said that she's going end up with roughly the same, albeit slightly less votes than she received in 2008?
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Which was at the end of the single most competitive primary races in Dem primary process history.
I think there's a real case to be made that if Bernie had been actually competitive that turnout would be higher. As it stands, she's going to lose modest support from 2008, meanwhile the competition is going to lose between 4-5 million votes from the competition in 2008.
Prodigal Son
Member
Again, this ain't about Bernie. This is about our weak presumptive nominee.
She is receiving less votes as the winning candidate today than she received as the losing candidate in 2008. Ignore the total turnout? Fine.
What about her turnout?
Elaugaufein
Member
Yes, because the guy that hawks these:
Is totally going to win. That's going to happen.
Don't think those are actual Trump merch (since Trump isn't mentioned at all).
Also that top one is pretty much a word for word repeat of a "joke" dinner item at an Australian Liberal Party (read "business conservative") fundraiser about then prime minister Julia Gillard so it's even original.
A bunch of people on my Twitter are on the #dropouthillary bandwagon and it's great. And I'm not trying to be snide there, I mean I am legitimately impressed by the level of loyalty these people show to an obviously failed candidate. Kinda makes me wish people could get so hyped up for British politics but I suppose when your election process doesn't take over a year people have less time to decide which guns they're sticking to.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
We won't actually know where each stood until the convention.
But roughly, Hillary is going to be down a million to two million votes from Barack in 2008. Bernies going to be down 4-5 million votes from Hillary 2008.
Cali will actually decide where Hillary ends up. I expect her to be around 13-13.5 million votes by Cali. And Bernie to be around 10 million votes. Cali could add both around 1.8-2.3 million votes to their totals.
Which would be down from 2008 as well. Hillary received 2.6 million votes and Barack 2.1 million.
But roughly, Hillary is going to be down a million to two million votes from Barack in 2008. Bernies going to be down 4-5 million votes from Hillary 2008.
Cali will actually decide where Hillary ends up. I expect her to be around 13-13.5 million votes by Cali. And Bernie to be around 10 million votes. Cali could add both around 1.8-2.3 million votes to their totals.
Which would be down from 2008 as well. Hillary received 2.6 million votes and Barack 2.1 million.
Prodigal Son
Member
Ah so what you're saying is that our nominee is going to have receive millions of less votes this times around than in 2008? Yeah. Like I said. You're not saying anything I haven't already been pointing out.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Her turnout is down from 2008, where she was facing Barack Hussein Obama, the first Democrat in more than a generation to win the White House with more than 51% of the vote for two terms.
To act like being down marginally is a bad thing when you're facing someone with nowhere near the charisma, capability, or campaign is silly.
Of course she'd be down. There's little in the way of competition for her.
Prodigal Son
Member
We're not talking about total turnout.
We're talking about people who have shown up to the polling stations to vote for her.
There are less of these people. 'Obama was really popular' isn't an argument. Of course he was and is. I'm asking why she isn't. She isn't just shy of his number of votes in 08, she's shy of her own number of votes in 08 when she lost. And why is she doing so poorly with the future of the democratic base and doing well with those who will be dead by the next general?
And again, there is no real basis to conclude that there's less tension in this primary than there was in 2008. Both were pretty heated.
Frozenprince
Banned
It's been how many pages of the same argument now?
Prodigal Son
Member
Too many. It's like 3:35. I'm going to bed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked