Support NeoGAF

[Azzanadra]

The way I see it, either we get a symbolic step forward for human equality in the most powerful country in the world or free college tuition and legal weed. I'm cool either way. There'll be liberal justices either way. I'm all good. My ass will be in the voting booth hitting the "democratic candidate" button as many times as it takes to go through. (Probably once.)
.

Because Obama was great for the black population and minorities in general.

Oh wait!

I agree that having a woman president would be a great victory, but Hilary should not be the one to lead that charge.

Even if you talk about symbolic steps forward, Bernie is better because Hilary is just going to maintain this status quo that devalues lower and middle class schmucks like me and the majority of the West. Bernie is the one who cares about the common folk while Clinton will only continue to pander to the social elite and the rich, one evidence being her love for Wall Street.

 

[kirblar]

I don't understand the people who threaten to vote for either Trump or no one if they can't elect Bernie Sanders into office. It makes no sense. Hillary's the candidate who openly supports Planned Parenthood, equal rights, immigration reform and much more. Trump's the fear-mongering blowhard who hits on his daughter, calls every Mexican person a rapist (except for the ones that are docile servants), and wants to start more wars in the Middle East for inane reasons.

What on earth could be going through this hypothetical Bernie supporter's mind?

The ones who say they will bolt to Trump immediately?

Racism, mostly. They really like hearing "it's not about race, it's about class", and I suspect this is where Clinton's virulent supporters from '08 (like, say, Trump) have ended up this election cycle. Clinton's now tied to Obama.

 

[Armaros]

I agree. I'm not worried at all as I heard the same shit in 2008 coming from Clinton supporters that said if Obama wins they will not vote for him and vote for McCain. Look how that turned out.

Same thing will happen this year. Right now emotions are running high but as the election draws closer those people will fall in line as they always do.

The numbers from 2008 from supporters saying 'I won't vote for the other guy' were much higher during that primary compared to this one and nothing came out of it. Democrats rallied behind Obama

That primary was also much more negative.

 

[elrechazado]

So you're repeating with yourself with a tired ass "it was legal" meme. Nobody gives a shit. It's still terrible behavior what the patriot act has done. Amazing that there is a defense force for shit like this...

Proper analysis of the legality of a topic is a meme? It's relevant because we should know that our government legalizes and engages in these behaviors, and then factor into our voting what the candidates we choose to support are going to engage in, legalize, sign into law, or continue.

Cut it out with the willful ignorance and not wanting to hear actual analysis of the issues.

 

[Yoda]

Clinton has work to do with Sanders supporters; she can't just take their votes for granted.

That having been said, for all this talk of Sanders voters staying voting Trump/staying home/voting third party, the percentage of Sanders supporters saying they will vote for Clinton in the general is actually higher than the percentage of Clinton supporters who said they would vote for Obama in the general during the 2008 primary. People forget just how acrimonious that primary was. Again, Clinton will need to win some people over for sure and she's not entitled to any votes, but arguments that Sanders supporters will abandon Clinton en masse just aren't supported by history.

Do you have any data to back this claim up? There is a gulf of a difference between people who will vote for the other party vs. abstaining from voting. The latter being far more likely, but more likely for reasons related to voter-enthusiasm.

You guys are acting like the nomination is already over. It ISN'T, Hillary has always been the favorite, and surprise still is. Bernie exceeded expectations in Nevada and most likely will do the same in SC, but it's still a moon-shot for him to win... that doesn't mean one should give up if you truly care about what he stands for.

 

[kirblar]

Do you have any data to back this claim up? There is a gulf of a difference between people who will vote for the other party vs. abstaining from voting. The latter being far more likely, but more likely for reasons related to voter-enthusiasm.

You guys are acting like the nomination is already over. It ISN'T, Hillary has always been the favorite, and surprise still is. Bernie exceeded expectations in Nevada and most likely will do the same in SC, but it's still a moon-shot for him to win... that doesn't mean one should give up if you truly care about what he stands for.

The Super Tuesday polling looks like a bloodbath at this point, unless that changes, people are expecting this to be over soon because of it.

 

[Giant Panda]

Bernie is proposing social democracy policies, these are more center-left than far-left. I don't believe making a welfare state would erase the negatives of capitalism, and many socialists agree. There are some socialists that actively push for super high wages, but that isn't a goal of socialism. I agree with this, there are certain "anti-imperialist" guys in the far-left that seem to support any government because it doesn't like the US. In my opinion this apologetic viewpoint turns people off of the far-left and ignore the actual, positive movements we have had. Rojava is a currently existing autonomous state that has formed during the war in Syria. Rojava is libertarian socialist and are making great strides (and actively fight ISIS), but you don't hear much about them from the "anti-imperialist" bunch. The "anti-imperialist" people focus on and give respect to the wrong places out of sole hatred of another. So trust me, I get where you are coming from.

(Description of Rojava's government)
(Video of of Rojava)

When I think center-left I think of mostly neoliberal policies: Very capitalist, some safety regulations, and a social safety net.

As for anti-imperialism, I do give credit to Bernie for not really following any of that nonsense. I had some concerns that he might based on some of his past connections to the Soviet Union. Jeremy Corbyn on the other hand falls into this hypocritical group.

 

[Not]

Even if you talk about symbolic steps forward, Bernie is better because Hilary is just going to maintain this status quo that devalues lower and middle class schmucks like me and the majority of the West. Bernie is the one who cares about the common folk while Clinton will only continue to pander to the social elite and the rich, one evidence being her love for Wall Street.

But that seems more like symbolic support of upending the class system, not women in power, which is what I was referring to. I'm not saying Hillary would do a better job than Bernie here, just that a female President of the US after 43 consecutive male ones is a really big and exciting statement. And she wouldn't do a worse job than the Republican candidate; that superlong Benghazi hearing alone proved that to me.

 

[Meowster]

Does it even matter? They're people who would vote for Bernie but not Clinton. Maybe they'd even become more progressive if Bernie was elected.

Leaving out minorities, LGBT members, women to suffer under modern Republican rule just because doesn't seem very progressive to me. I'm hoping that this shit is from a small vocal part of the Internet.

 

[Manmademan]

Do you have any data to back this claim up? There is a gulf of a difference between people who will vote for the other party vs. abstaining from voting. The latter being far more likely, but more likely for reasons related to voter-enthusiasm.

You guys are acting like the nomination is already over. It ISN'T, Hillary has always been the favorite, and surprise still is. Bernie exceeded expectations in Nevada and most likely will do the same in SC, but it's still a moon-shot for him to win... that doesn't mean one should give up if you truly care about what he stands for.

The narrative going into nevada was that the race was a tie there between the two, and bernie had closed the gap with hispanics. The current results we have available (5% of precincts have not reported- mostly in clark county which has the vast majority of available delegates) have bernie losing by 6%, with the possibility of widening further. He also appears to have lost the minority vote among latinos and black voters yet again.

This is absolutely not exceeding expectations.

Polling in SC has him down up to 30 points depending on who you trust, and he's barely going to bother campaigning there. it will be a blowout and it will be very painful, 3 days before super tuesday.

There's no realistic way he comes out of March 1st with a viable candidacy.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Do you have any data to back this claim up? There is a gulf of a difference between people who will vote for the other party vs. abstaining from voting. The latter being far more likely, but more likely for reasons related to voter-enthusiasm.

You guys are acting like the nomination is already over. It ISN'T, Hillary has always been the favorite, and surprise still is. Bernie exceeded expectations in Nevada and most likely will do the same in SC, but it's still a moon-shot for him to win... that doesn't mean one should give up if you truly care about what he stands for.

Here's a poll from March 2008 showing Clinton supporters deserting Obama in huge numbers in the general.

And, yes, I should have qualified my post by saying that this is all if Clinton is the nominee, but the discussion I was responding to has been with this implicit qualification.

 

[Amir0x]

The Super Tuesday polling looks like a bloodbath at this point, unless that changes, people are expecting this to be over soon because of it.

yup slow death march at this point

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Proper analysis of the legality of a topic is a meme? It's relevant because we should know that our government legalizes and engages in these behaviors, and then factor into our voting what the candidates we choose to support are going to engage in, legalize, sign into law, or continue.

Cut it out with the willful ignorance and not wanting to hear actual analysis of the issues.

No, I'm referring to nationalistic scapegoats of people excusing behavior because it's the law.

It's legal to stone women to death in some countries, therefore it is okay, because that is what the law says. That is a meme because it is used by people all over the world to let bad things from being changed. A repeated mantra that enables the status quo and practice of something to conspire, and it exists in about every country, as every country has nationalists who defends a law.

However, foxtrot explained that he was explaining the legality of the argument, not the moral and ethical side of it, which was my point.

 

[phanphare]

march

intended or not I chuckled

 

[Yoda]

The narrative going into nevada was that the race was a tie there between the two, and bernie had closed the gap with hispanics. The current results we have available (5% of precincts have not reported- mostly in clark county which has the vast majority of available delegates) have bernie losing by 6%, with the possibility of widening further. He also appears to have lost the minority vote among latinos and black voters yet again.

This is absolutely not exceeding expectations.

Polling in SC has him down up to 30 points depending on who you trust, and he's barely going to bother campaigning there. it will be a blowout and it will be very painful, 3 days before super tuesday.

There's no realistic way he comes out of March 1st with a viable candidacy.

The narrative was he can't perform at all in diverse states, obviously the tune changed from the opposition as the polls tightened, but the expectations gaming doesn't rewrite history. ~47% of the vote doesn't agree with that narrative. Hillary received nearly every single major endorsement and didn't start off behind in double digits. No one was willing to even concede Bernie would be taking seriously in Nevada a little over a month ago, let alone show he has support outside young whites, which he does.

 

[Box]

Leaving out minorities, LGBT members, women to suffer under modern Republican rule just because doesn't seem very progressive to me. I'm hoping that this shit is from a small vocal part of the Internet.

So what? Do you think their vote for Bernie is going to somehow count less because they're not progressive?



I mean don't most people on this forum often lament how conservative voters vote against their economic self-interest? And now that they're voting for someone whose proposed policies support the middle class, are we really going to complain that they're not ideologically pure?

 

[Yoda]

Here's a poll from March 2008 showing Clinton supporters deserting Obama in huge numbers in the general.

And, yes, I should have qualified my post by saying that this is all if Clinton is the nominee, but the discussion I was responding to has been with this implicit qualification.

This isn't their actual vote in November, this is them polling people mid primary season who are still attached to their candidate of choice. If Bernie/Clinton lose, they will be helping the other win the election, period. This thread is a good example of that, if we were to take a look at the issues people care closely about:

- Institutional racism
- Income inequality
- Money in politics
- SCOTUS appointment
...

We will find that it's anathema to vote for Trump/<insert Republican here>. Stay home because you want to protest the status quo? OK, maybe, but that is up the the candidate who wins to inspire the voters. Democrats never have and never will vote out of fear, if we did we wouldn't lose every single mid-term election.

The Super Tuesday polling looks like a bloodbath at this point, unless that changes, people are expecting this to be over soon because of it.

There has been limited campaigning from Bernie in said states, and of course he has no where close to the name recognition that Hillary does. Like I said, Hillary is still (as she always was) the favorite. Hiliary winning Nevada removed Bernie's momentum from the NH win, but Bernie didn't win NH or tie in Iowa from momentum, he made voters believe in a different path for the party and it's plausible there are more people who can be swayed. To the point, the kind of bickering and gloating in this thread is what you'd expect from a campaign ending, not losing one contest.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

I just wanted to say that Bernie Sanders doesn't have /all/ the youth vote. He fares poorly with black millenials. So, once again, Sanders has to win over minorities, just as Clinton has to win over non-black youth.

And speaking for myself as a black woman in her forties, I have to be practical with my vote. If Bernie wins, I'm voting for him, if Hillary wins, I'm voting for her. Because the other side is nothing but monsters (Yes, even Kasich, who just signed a bill to defund Planned Parenthood in my home state of Ohio). And I can't afford to be all sensitive and passive aggressive and stay home. I have to vote.

 

[Box of Kittens]

This isn't their actual vote in November, this is them polling people mid primary season who are still attached to their candidate of choice.

That's exactly my point. A huge percentage of Clinton supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama in the general, and then they voted for him anyway after things had cooled down.

I'm saying you can't take talk about Sanders supporters abandoning Clinton in large numbers as something that will necessarily translate to what people do in November. Clinton can't just take those votes for granted if she is the nominee, but she can and will try to court them and history suggests that she would have a good chance at getting a significant number of those votes.

 

[Manmademan]

The narrative was he can't perform at all in diverse states, obviously the tune changed from the opposition as the polls tightened, but the expectations gaming doesn't rewrite history. ~47% of the vote doesn't agree with that narrative. Hillary received nearly every single major endorsement and didn't start off behind in double digits. No one was willing to even concede Bernie would be taking seriously in Nevada a little over a month ago, let alone show he has support outside young whites, which he does.

False.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-nevada-democratic-presidential-caucus

Polling out of nevada was sparse, but december 27th (before iowa and new hampshire) had that race at 50% to 37%, with the remainder undecided.

After a close loss in Iowa and a win in new hampshire, bernie picked up support as that's what happens after a legitimate victory or a close loss. He was never going to get blown out as he will in south carolina, but he was always "taken seriously." nearly 40% of the vote before a single primary win is "taken seriously".

It wasn't bernie who exceeded expectations here, it was clinton. Polls had her at 50% support or less since October and recent polls tied at 45% with Sanders. She ended up winning there with at least 53%.

 

[Yoda]

Uh, that's exactly my point.

the percentage of Sanders supporters saying they will vote for Clinton in the general is actually higher than the percentage of Clinton supporters who said they would vote for Obama in the general during the 2008 primary

This data-point is missing, and I made the assumption that you were drawing a conclusion that Bernie supporters saying the aforementioned in numbers > than your cited poll meant a drop in Clinton's GE support? But, as I pointed out the data you cited doesn't have any actual GE data with it.

 

[elrechazado]

However, foxtrot explained that he was explaining the legality of the argument, not the moral and ethical side of it, which was my point.

That was clear to anyone who took time to actually read his post...

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

That was clear to anyone who took time to actually read his post...

I must be a special snowflake then. Do you have anything else, or are you going to keep shitposting?

 

[exmachina64]

Bernie's policies are considered center-left in America? Because if you're talking about center-left on an international stage... well, those guys can't vote in US elections so their criteria is invalid when describing our political climate.

As some subset of Bernie supporters and non-US gaffers frequently remind us, Bernie's policies are not far-left outside of the U.S. Kinda makes sense that we should start contextualizing him as center-left.

 

[Yoda]

False.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-nevada-democratic-presidential-caucus

Polling out of nevada was sparse, but december 27th (before iowa and new hampshire) had that race at 50% to 37%, with the remainder undecided.

After a close loss in Iowa and a win in new hampshire, bernie picked up support as that's what happens after a legitimate victory or a close loss. He was never going to get blown out as he will in south carolina, but he was always "taken seriously." nearly 40% of the vote before a single primary win is "taken seriously".

It wasn't bernie who exceeded expectations here, it was clinton. Polls had her at 50% support or less since October and recent polls tied at 45% with Sanders. She ended up winning there with at least 53%.

That page shows him coming from nothing to a solid finish. The last poll before the results shows 50-47 (Clinton) which is very close to the results. Saying he didn't live up when he was at BEST thought to tie is expectations gaming.

On a side note, Clinton wasn't even mentioning him by name in stump speeches until a few months ago. The DNC had an embarrassing debate schedule which was clearly intended to have a quick nomination. Saying he's been viewed as a real contender all along is not accurate.

 

[Macho Madness]

As some subset of Bernie supporters and non-US gaffers frequently remind us, Bernie's policies are not far-left outside of the U.S. Kinda makes sense that we should start contextualizing him as center-left.

Not in the terms of US Politics, which is all that matters. Bernie is hard left in the US, possibly the most extreme left politician in national politics.

 

[DirtyManos]

Checked a few pages back to see if it was posted, but some hard numbers on minority voting during the Nevada caucus:

Mrs. Clinton won by carrying Las Vegas&#8217;s Clark County &#8212; the most diverse in the state &#8212; by a 10-point margin. She won the majority Hispanic precincts in East Las Vegas, calling into question the entrance-exit poll finding that Mr. Sanders won the Hispanic vote.

Doesn't seem to be any hard numbers on by how much for the Hispanic vote. The real sobering one for the Sanders campaign:

The results by precinct also indicate that Mrs. Clinton fared extremely well among black voters. In six precincts identified as majority black by The Upshot, Mrs. Clinton won the delegate count by a staggering 96-7. The entrance-exit poll showed her with a 76-22 percentage advantage among African-Americans.

The article concludes:

Nevada was the third straight state where, because of demographics, one would have expected Mr. Sanders to fare better than the national average. In terms of the Democratic primary electorate, the black voter share in the state is below the national average. If African-Americans are the principal source of Mrs. Clinton&#8217;s national advantage, as her strength with them today and her modest showing among Hispanic voters suggest, then she should be expected to fare better elsewhere.

Link

 

[googleplex]

Okay. My point was merely from a moral outrage perspective.

Moral outrage is fine and justified. But words like "Unconstitutional" and "Illegal" carry weight.

 

[adj_noun]

People forget just how acrimonious that primary was.

I've never forgotten the PUMAs.

 

[Box of Kittens]

This data-point is missing, and I made the assumption that you were drawing a conclusion that Bernie supporters saying the aforementioned in numbers > than your cited poll meant a drop in Clinton's GE support? But, as I pointed out the data you cited doesn't have any actual GE data with it.

Here's a recent poll indicating 21% of Sanders supporters say they would not support Clinton in the general election.

Exit polls in 2008 had Obama getting roughly 90% of the Democratic vote. Note that Obama's performance among Democrats was roughly equal to McCain's performance among Republicans. It was also roughly equal to Kerry's performance in 2004 among Democrats. There's just no evidence that Clinton voters actually did abandon Obama in significant numbers.

One can argue of course about precise question wording, the dangers of going on only one poll, etc. I would love to do a comparison with more data but it would be quite time consuming.

Now allow me to clarify my original point. Some people have made a large deal about the number of Sanders supporters who say they aren't voting for Clinton in November if she's the nominee, suggesting it spells certain doom for her. I am pointing out that 2008 was a similarly acrimonious primary and yet Obama won over most Clinton supporters by the time the general election rolled around. Therefore we can't take the current poll numbers at face value; Clinton may well win many of these voters over if she's the nominee. That's not to say that she automatically will or that she is entitled to those votes or anything like that, just that it's not set in stone that Sanders voters will abandon Clinton any more than it was set in stone that Clinton supporters would abandon Obama in 2008.

 

[RustyNails]

Trump took all of 50 South Carolina state delegates. ALL

Rubio gets NOTHING

Cruz gets NOTHING

Trump is going to be the nominee. Rubio's underpants gnome theory still in full effect.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

Probably when they start tolerating racism, sexism, being anti-immagration, anti-choice, pro-corporate and anti-LGBT.

So, never?

I know it's fun for people here to shit on TYT but that's an asinine comment. It's a very liberal program.

Probably when they start to tolerate racism and misogyny. When do you think that will be?

it wasn't a comment on TYT but the people here who are near equal in their Bernie love but still turn around and post they will vote for Trump

 

[Veritigo_X]

Trump is going to be the nominee. Rubio's underpants gnome theory still in full effect.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Aw damn it, this should've been in the South Park debate OT.

 

[adj_noun]

Trump took all of 50 South Carolina state delegates. ALL

Rubio gets NOTHING

Cruz gets NOTHING

Trump is going to be the nominee. Rubio's underpants gnome theory still in full effect.

I can take a page out of Carson's book and put "Tied Ted Cruz for delegate count in 2016 South Carolina Republican primary" to go with Time Magazine Person of the Year on my resume.

 

[ampere]

I wonder how close the race has to be after Super Tuesday for Bernie to still realistically have a chance. Already went and voted in early voting myself, I don't think I'll ever actually go on election day again as it's such a hassle.

Here's a recent poll indicating 21% of Sanders supporters say they would not support Clinton in the general election.

smh

Some people are just idiots. Literally giving half a vote to the other party if you abstain from voting

Trump took all of 50 South Carolina state delegates. ALL

Rubio gets NOTHING

Cruz gets NOTHING

Trump is going to be the nominee. Rubio's underpants gnome theory still in full effect.

What if the party just says nope and nominates Rubio? Or is that limited to the % swing that the super-delegates hold

 

[TwoDurans]

It's very concerning every time I see a Sanders supporter saying they're not going to vote when Clinton gets the nomination.

Not only is this EXACTLY against Sanders' key message of "doesn't matter for whom, just vote" but this is how we end up with a Trump presidency. That man has motivated GOP supporters in a very alarming way, and if half the blue team is going to act like children because they didn't get their way we're in trouble in November.

 

[noshten]

Civil rights activist Dolores Huerta claims Bernie Sanders supporters chanted 'English-only' at Nevada caucus

They have found a way to appeal to Sanders supporters

Spoiler

lol

 

[MotherFan]

I wonder how close the race has to be after Super Tuesday for Bernie to still realistically have a chance. Already went and voted in early voting myself, I don't think I'll ever actually go on election day again as it's such a hassle.



smh

Some people are just idiots. Literally giving half a vote to the other party if you abstain from voting



What if the party just says nope and nominates Rubio? Or is that limited to the % swing that the super-delegates hold

Only if you believe a single poll about this issue during a contested primary.

 

[Macho Madness]

What if the party just says nope and nominates Rubio? Or is that limited to the % swing that the super-delegates hold

It's limited, and it guarantees a Trump independent run. He wouldn't care if he's not on the ballot. He would go absolutely scorched earth to destroy the Republican party.

 

[Amir0x]

It's very concerning every time I see a Sanders supporter saying they're not going to vote when Clinton gets the nomination.

Not only is this EXACTLY against Sanders' key message of "doesn't matter for whom, just vote" but this is how we end up with a Trump presidency. That man has motivated GOP supporters in a very alarming way, and if half the blue team is going to act like children because they didn't get their way we're in trouble in November.

It's not even close to half. Don't worry about the Bernie extremists - 99% of them will vote Hillary, and it's not even like young people are a voting bloc that actually ever end up materializing in amazing numbers. It's empty rhetoric from bitter voters just learning the harsh realities of the process.

 

[Joel Was Right]

God, I cringe whenever I listen to Clinton and Rubio. It's like watching an informercial with bad acting.

 

[ampere]

Only if you believe a single poll about this issue during a contested primary.

I'm a Bernie supporter myself so I'm not just knocking anyone who supports him. But we know there are people out there saying they'd refuse to vote if he loses the primary and it's really foolish.

It's limited, and it guarantees a Trump independent run. He wouldn't care if he's not on the ballot. He would go absolutely scorched earth to destroy the Republican party.

Yea, he absolutely would. Huge ego

 

[Kettch]

Here's a recent poll indicating 21% of Sanders supporters say they would not support Clinton in the general election.

Exit polls in 2008 had Obama getting roughly 90% of the Democratic vote. Note that Obama's performance among Democrats was roughly equal to McCain's performance among Republicans. It was also roughly equal to Kerry's performance in 2004 among Democrats. There's just no evidence that Clinton voters actually did abandon Obama in significant numbers.

One can argue of course about precise question wording, the dangers of going on only one poll, etc. I would love to do a comparison with more data but it would be quite time consuming.

Now allow me to clarify my original point. Some people have made a large deal about the number of Sanders supporters who say they aren't voting for Clinton in November if she's the nominee, suggesting it spells certain doom for her. I am pointing out that 2008 was a similarly acrimonious primary and yet Obama won over most Clinton supporters by the time the general election rolled around. Therefore we can't take the current poll numbers at face value; Clinton may well win many of these voters over if she's the nominee. That's not to say that she automatically will or that she is entitled to those votes or anything like that, just that it's not set in stone that Sanders voters will abandon Clinton any more than it was set in stone that Clinton supporters would abandon Obama in 2008.

What I'd like to see is more data to say whether this 21% number is at all unusual. From the same poll, it says that 14% of Clinton backers wouldn't vote for Sanders. That's certainly lower, but it's still pretty significant. For all I know, these numbers could both be in the normal range for a contested primary.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

If Hillary doesn't when the GE, blaim her messages and lack of enthusiasm, not Sanders or his supporters.

I know what I have to do if she is in the running for GE in Texas, which might not be apart of that polled 20% number. It would be a big deal if it was in states like Ohio, florida, colorado and penn.

 

[Damaniel]

Polling shows Sanders does better in head to head matchups.. so your beliefs are based on feelings not current facts

I can't believe that this 'better in head-to-head matchups' crap is still a thing. There's a reason that the GOP isn't slinging mud at Bernie - they're praying he wins so they can sling it then.

See here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/berned-up

He has reasonably decent favorables among polled voters, at least initially - but once the expected collection of GOP attacks are passed by those people polled, he loses - badly. Just because his favorables don't suck now doesn't mean they won't later (and evidence exists that those favorables *will* suck the closer we get to November). Hillary's favorables are a floor, while Bernie's are a ceiling - and we don't know where the floor is for him.

I base my decisions for who to vote on using a number of criteria, and 'electability' is a relatively small - but real - one. Hillary plain has more experience than Bernie does, and she gets us 90% of what progressives want. All you have to do is look at their voting records and not the Rush Limbaughesque caricature of her that Bernie supporters have in their minds for some reason. Those two or three Supreme Court justices that the next President will replace could be the foundation for social democracy in the next 10-20 years - having a temper tantrum and going home could make that 10-20 years 30 or more, if we're lucky.

If Hillary doesn't when the GE, blaim her messages and lack of enthusiasm, not Sanders or his supporters.

I know what I have to do if she is in the running for GE in Texas, which might not be apart of that polled 20% number. It would be a big deal if it was in states like Ohio, florida, colorado and penn.

Considering that he's made no traction outside of New Hampshire and that he's looking at multiple double digit defeats in the next couple of weeks, I'd say that the real enthusiasm isn't on his side - we just don't waste time retweeting stuff or upvoting Bernie memes on Reddit. As an example, look at pro-Bernie versus pro-Hillary articles on a site like Daily Kos. The Hillary posts may have a picture or two but have a lot of content about endorsements and policy and other important things, while Bernie posts are mostly memes and 'rah rah rah' images, which look nice - but don't actually have much substance. 'Vocal' isn't the same as 'enthusiastic'. Hillary supporters, on the whole, like our candidate more - we just don't feel the need to waste time trying to create a 'revolution' on Twitter and Facebook.

 

[Macho Madness]

What I'd like to see is more data to say whether this 21% number is at all unusual. From the same poll, it says that 14% of Clinton backers wouldn't vote for Sanders. That's certainly lower, but it's still pretty significant. For all I know, these numbers could both be in the normal range for a contested primary.

It's lower than the last time the Democrats had a contested primary

 

[MotherFan]

I'm a Bernie supporter myself so I'm not just knocking anyone who supports him. But we know there are people out there saying they'd refuse to vote if he loses the primary and it's really foolish.



Yea, he absolutely would. Huge ego

I know and in 2008 we had hillary supporters saying the same thing. People are getting really nasty now and im sick of seeing it. Blaming bernie supporters get us nowhere when we know that most will toe the line based on history. If we want to point at the correct issues that could be a problem in november it is solving clinton's unfavorables and rubio winning the nomination.

 

[IJoel]

I just wanted to say that Bernie Sanders doesn't have /all/ the youth vote. He fares poorly with black millenials. So, once again, Sanders has to win over minorities, just as Clinton has to win over non-black youth.

And speaking for myself as a black woman in her forties, I have to be practical with my vote. If Bernie wins, I'm voting for him, if Hillary wins, I'm voting for her. Because the other side is nothing but monsters (Yes, even Kasich, who just signed a bill to defund Planned Parenthood in my home state of Ohio). And I can't afford to be all sensitive and passive aggressive and stay home. I have to vote.

Completely agreed. To not vote, simply because the democratic candidate isn't your preference, is frankly naive and possibly childish, when you consider the alternative. I'll be voting for the democrat candidate because the alternative is simply unthinkable. I don't even want to Imagine the damage a republican congress and presidency would do to the country.

 

[Mecha]

It's very concerning every time I see a Sanders supporter saying they're not going to vote when Clinton gets the nomination.

Not only is this EXACTLY against Sanders' key message of "doesn't matter for whom, just vote" but this is how we end up with a Trump presidency. That man has motivated GOP supporters in a very alarming way, and if half the blue team is going to act like children because they didn't get their way we're in trouble in November.

A lot of people seem to say on /r/sandersforpresident that they will vote for Jill Stein instead. Then some others are a bit crazier: