Support NeoGAF

[Quixzlizx]

Obama won on June 3rd, 2008 and Clinton dropped out June 7th, 2008.

Tell me again why everyone is going loco worried about Bernie's exit drop-out timing when there is no empirical evidence ever in the history of forever that this matters in any way? Obviously if he runs third party or tries to sabotage the convention (no, requesting changes in who runs a session or oversees a process is not "sabotaging the convention") or doesn't endorse her when he drops out or whatever he can have a negative impact on her, but that's not the debate here. The debate here is that his continued candidacy hurts Hillary even though everyone knows she's the nominee.

These people who are Chicken Littling everywhere about how Bernie dropping out on June xth rather than May nth is ruining the party are fucking giant ass diaper babies. Didn't we all collectively agree to leave behind this braindead shoot-from-the-gut analysis the last eight hundred times all the game changers ended up being game samers? Give me a break.

Neither Clinton nor Obama made the argument of "If I don't end up with the nomination, the Democratic Party is corrupt." He's trying to tank the credibility of the institution, rather than the opposing candidate.

Maybe that won't make a difference in the end, but it's a difference right now.

 

[JordanN]

It doesn't matter to me when or if Bernie drops out. He's still the only other candidate to support that isn't Drumpf or doesn't have the FBI following him (Hillary). Nothing wrong with that.

 

[rothgar]

nvm

 

[GutsOfThor]

Bernie had a great run and I'm happy to have been able to vote for him, but it's time to throw in the towel. His campaign has gotten a little bit... yucky in the past couple months.

I agree. While Sanders gets on my nerves, he did come further than I think anyone could have predicted and for that he should be proud. I think if he had a different attitude other than "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is corrupt", he would have gotten further.

 

[DOWN]

Obama won on June 3rd, 2008 and Clinton dropped out June 7th, 2008.

Tell me again why everyone is going loco worried about Bernie's exit drop-out timing when there is no empirical evidence ever in the history of forever that this matters in any way? Obviously if he runs third party or tries to sabotage the convention (no, requesting changes in who runs a session or oversees a process is not "sabotaging the convention") or doesn't endorse her when he drops out or whatever he can have a negative impact on her, but that's not the debate here. The debate here is that his continued candidacy hurts Hillary even though everyone knows she's the nominee.

These people who are Chicken Littling everywhere about how Bernie dropping out on June xth rather than May nth is ruining the party are fucking giant ass diaper babies. Didn't we all collectively agree to leave behind this braindead shoot-from-the-gut analysis the last eight hundred times all the game changers ended up being game samers? Give me a break.

Because Hillary was millions of votes closer to Obama in 2008 than Bernie is to Hillary. And Hillary actually had many cases of dominating the popular vote despite delegate count in 2008.

 

[collige]

If I were him, I'd keep running just to keep more people invested in the political process and to draw attention to the insane way that we conduct our primaries. People have been bitching for a while now that he needs to drop out, but it doesn't seem a little bit messed up to anyone that were talking about how the math dooms Bernie a week before anyone from a full six states (plus DC and PR) have even gotten a chance to vote? I'd be pissed as hell if I lived in Cali.

 

[norm9]

Reid is a Hillary shill so nobody will believe this guy.

And "mathing," really? It's dumb to pretend to be dumber than you are to try to connect with people.

 

[commedieu]

mothafukas bernie is quantum.

#BERNIESBOX

 

[Aaron Strife]

If I were him, I'd keep running just to keep more people invested in the political process and to draw attention to the insane way that we conduct our primaries. People have been bitching for a while now that he needs to drop out, but it doesn't seem a little bit messed up to anyone that were talking about how the math dooms Bernie a week before anyone from a full six states (plus DC and PR) have even gotten a chance to vote? I'd be pissed as hell if I lived in Cali.

I don't like that the primary schedule is set up the way it is, but man we can talk about what the system should be but this is fucking reality. Yes it really sucks that Cali's vote won't end up mattering that much but if Bernie needs to win ~90% of the remaining vote I don't see why analysts need to sugarcoat their assessment of the race to avoid hurting Bernie supporters' fee fees.

Ideally the primary schedule would be staggered out over like three dates within a month or two.

 

[Neuromancer]

How dare this man keep running for president? There ought to be rules about this sort of thing. Like if enough people on internet message boards complain, you should automatically be disqualified.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Bernie is pretty much the Ron Paul of this election. Keep fighting though.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Keep moving those goalposts Bernie, pathetic

 

[thestopsign]

Would you rather the Sanders campaign release a statement saying:

"While there is no likely path to victory for our campaign, It is our belief that there is a strong possibility that the FBI's investigation will reveal that Secretary Clinton engaged in serious criminal wrongdoing. And for that reason we are committed to staying in the race until the convention, in the event that Secretary Clinton is forced to withdraw her candidacy."

I've come around to being fine with him staying in, even if I don't like his method or reason for doing so. I just find it ridiculous that any supporter could still think there is a viable way to garner a majority of delegates, super or otherwise.

 

[davepoobond]

its too late for establishment mathematics

 

[Team Alucard]

I've come around to being fine with him staying in, even if I don't like his method or reason for doing so. I just find it ridiculous that any supporter could still think there is a viable way to garner a majority of delegates, super or otherwise.

The alternative is to flat out call Hillary a criminal. How is that better?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I don't think Bernie is going anywhere as long as Hillary's chances of being indicted remain nonzero. If the FBI does release their report and not recommend indictment then I think Bernie will seriously consider conceding.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Well, I think it all depends on what you mean by "chance." I mean, if we're playing an American football game, and I'm up by 55 points, sure, you can say "I still have a chance if I can just get 56 more points!" But if I point out that there are 15 seconds left on the clock, it's sort of reached the point where "I still mathematically have a chance" is just lying to yourself.

We can try to come up with a similar argument;
Suppose that in all remaining primary states, Bernie gets the vote share he got in his best primary state excluding Vermont--that's 61%. Suppose that in all remaining caucus states, Bernie gets the vote share he got in his best caucus state--that's 80% (rounded up, to favour Bernie). Suppose that the unpledged delegates break in proportion to the pledge delegates, and so getting 80% in a state gets you 80% of the state's delegates (this is an assumption that favours Bernie, because as Bernie supporters have complained, unpledged delegates undermine the will of the people by supporting the establishment candidates!!!!) So these assumptions are very generous to Bernie.

So, then he earns:
80% of the delegates in USVI and ND for a total of 28
61% of the delegates in PR, CA, MT, NJ, NM, SD, and DC for a total of 547
This gives him a total of 575 more delegates.
Hillary gets the remaining 349 delegates.

The current delegate amounts are:
Hillary 1770 + 349 = 2119
Bernie 1500 + 547 = 2047

So under really the best case scenario assumptions to favour Bernie, he still ends up 80 delegates behind Hillary. Hillary is at this point well over a majority of delegates. If we assume the remaining superdelegates break for the majority winner of the pledged delegates, he loses. If we assume the remaining superdelegates break in any proportion for Hillary he loses. If we assume the remaining superdelegates break entirely for Bernie he loses.

Which means the math goes to some elaborate scheme to flip superdelegates who have already pledged to support Hillary.

So yes, I think we're very much in "I expect to get 5 touchdowns in the last 15 seconds" territory.

I don't think Bernie is going anywhere as long as Hillary's chances of being indicted remain nonzero. If the FBI does release their report and not recommend indictment then I think Bernie will seriously consider conceding.

You do know that, like, epistemologically her chances of being indicted remain non-zero after she gets the nomination or even after she's elected president. Your position is Schrodinger's Bernie. As long as we don't open the box to see if the Clinton cat ate the FBI poison, we don't know if her quantum candidacy is dead~!

 

[Xe4]

mothafukas bernie is quantum.

#BERNIESBOX

Bernie is in a box of height Hillary and with establishment walls of length L. Understanding that Sanders is in the lowest electoral college state, determine the probability that he Berns through the walls using the Berndinger equation (ignore super delegates).

 

[Hazmat]

Anyone arguing that since mathematically Sanders hasn't been eliminated he's still in it is like a college student in a class with two 25% midterms and a 50% final that scored a 40 on both midterms and thinks he has a chance to pass because a 100 on the final gets him a 70 for the course.

It's not going to happen. The same way that the aforementioned college kid's roommate isn't going to kill himself and give our plucky hero straight A's for the semester (not actually the way things work, and this is the not-going-to-happen indictment in this analogy).

 

[Brakke]

"I think he better do a little mathing." win Brakke's coveted Sentence of the Week award, and comes in as a strong early entrant in the Sentence of the Month race.

 

[.JayZii]

Mathing? Lol

"Mathing" is a perfectly cromulent word.

 

[CharminUltra]

Bernie hopes to woo math just like he hopes to woo the supers. It's all part of the plan, guys!

 

[Stumpokapow]

Because Hillary was millions of votes closer to Obama in 2008 than Bernie is to Hillary. And Hillary actually had many cases of dominating the popular vote despite delegate count in 2008.

Why is this a relevant distinction? My whole position is that if you begin from the premise that Bernie must drop out, you can reason yourself into some bizarre convolution of principles that sustain him being required to drop out, but these principles are not relevant to the real world concerns being expressed about Hillary's ability to enter the general election campaign or beat Trump or whatever.

Historically, some candidates drop out early, some drop out later, some wait until after they have been eliminated from contention, and there's no evidence the timing of that impacts the eventual nominee in any way.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

We can try to come up with a similar argument;
Suppose that in all remaining primary states, Bernie gets the vote share he got in his best primary state excluding Vermont--that's 61%. Suppose that in all remaining caucus states, Bernie gets the vote share he got in his best caucus state--that's 80% (rounded up, to favour Bernie). Suppose that the unpledged delegates break in proportion to the pledge delegates, and so getting 80% in a state gets you 80% of the state's delegates (this is an assumption that favours Bernie, because as Bernie supporters have complained, unpledged delegates undermine the will of the people by supporting the establishment candidates!!!!) So these assumptions are very generous to Bernie.

So, then he earns:
80% of the delegates in USVI and ND for a total of 28
61% of the delegates in PR, CA, MT, NJ, NM, SD, and DC for a total of 547
This gives him a total of 575 more delegates.
Hillary gets the remaining 349 delegates.

The current delegate amounts are:
Hillary 1770 + 349 = 2119
Bernie 1500 + 547 = 2047

So under really the best case scenario assumptions to favour Bernie, he still ends up 80 delegates behind Hillary. Hillary is at this point well over a majority of delegates. If we assume the remaining superdelegates break for the majority winner of the pledged delegates, he loses. If we assume the remaining superdelegates break in any proportion for Hillary he loses. If we assume the remaining superdelegates break entirely for Bernie he loses.

Which means the math goes to some elaborate scheme to flip superdelegates who have already pledged to support Hillary.

So yes, I think we're very much in "I expect to get 5 touchdowns in the last 15 seconds" territory.



You do know that, like, epistemologically her chances of being indicted remain non-zero after she gets the nomination or even after she's elected president. Your position is Schrodinger's Bernie. As long as we don't open the box to see if the Clinton cat ate the FBI poison, we don't know if her quantum candidacy is dead~!

Exactly. At this point, the "mathematical argument" for Bernie is "well, technically, anything can happen! There's a mathematical chance the sun won't rise tomorrow." And it's like, sure, I suppose, but clearly you're using an overly strict definition of "a chance something can happen" if you're now unable to rule out any phenomena. There's clearly a colloquial connotation to "chance" here that is used in day to day life. When the probability of something happening is one in a million, we're usually pretty comfortable saying "there's no chance." The same should apply here.

Further, as you pointed out with your math, there's two different interpretations of "mathematical chance" at play here. Some are hearing "there's no mathematical argument for Bernie to win" and they're saying "aha! But the rules say you need a majority of the delegates and the rules allow him to win that many in these states!" Again, sure, that's true. Much like how there is no rule in the NFL against scoring a touchdown every 2 seconds for 15 seconds. But does that means it's possible? That it's reasonable? Of course it doesn't.

 

[AxelFoley]

Bernie,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4nJ1YEAp4

 

[akira28]

Reid is a Hillary shill so nobody will believe this guy.

And "mathing," really? It's dumb to pretend to be dumber than you are to try to connect with people.

The dems aren't known for being party uber alles type people, like the Republicans but they are. You won't find another democrat now who will say bernie over hillary because they would be at odds with the party, and might not get support during their own campaigns. that's how they police their own, among other ways if the Party has made a definitive decision on something like they have with Hillary being the prime candidate.

 

[Jakoo]

As long as its not mathematically impossible, and he has the money to go on, I don't see why Bernie wouldn't continue on his path until the door has completely and irrefutably has shut on him. The odds of him winning are practically null but this has been an odd election cycle, so I can see his logic in sticking around as long as possible to give his issues as big a platform as he can. Until the ballots have been cast, their is always a long shot of some scandal breaking that might give him the edge.

Spoiler

I am not a Bernie Sanders fan, by any stretch of the imagination, but I still disagree with his detractors that he "owes" it to Clinton or the party to drop out early.

 

[DOWN]

Why is this a relevant distinction? My whole position is that if you begin from the premise that Bernie must drop out, you can reason yourself into some bizarre convolution of principles that sustain him being required to drop out, but these principles are not relevant to the real world concerns being expressed about Hillary's ability to enter the general election campaign or beat Trump or whatever.

Historically, some candidates drop out early, some drop out later, some wait until after they have been eliminated from contention, and there's no evidence the timing of that impacts the eventual nominee in any way.

We're saying Hillary stayed in because she had a chance. Bernie doesn't remotely and it's getting on people's nerves.

 

[Clockwork5]

"Sometimes you have to give up. " Harry Reid 2016

How noble.

 

[Professor Beef]

"You know they say all men are created equal. But you look at me and you look at Hillary Clinton and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one on one with another candidate, you got a 50-50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak and I'm not normal. So you got a 25% chance - at best - to beat me. And then you add Donald Trump to the mix!? Your chances of winning drastically go down.

You see, the three way at Sacrifice the polls you got a 33 and 1/3 chance of winning. But I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of winning cause Donald Trump knows he can't beat me and he's not even gonna try. So Hillary Clinton, you take your 33 and 1/3 chance, minus my 25% chance and you got an 8 and 1/3 chance of winning at Sacrifice the polls. But then you take my 75% of winning if it goes one on one and then add the 66 and 2/3% chance, I got a 141 and 2/3 chance of winning the Presidency. See Hillary, the numbers don't lie and they spell disaster for you at Sacrifice."

 

[akira28]

He may not have started the stink. But Bernie has effectively worn the stink. So I have to hold my nose, but I can still rationally look at him as a possibility just like I would Hillary. This election cycle has the aura of weird around it so anything can happen and if Bernie wants to pull Hillary as hard to the left as he can, I'm ok with it.

Because when the election is over, it will be up to us to keep pulling her unless you really want a conservative neo-liberal third way Democrat for the next 8 years. I'd like her to at least be socially liberal instead of moderate.

Bernie,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4nJ1YEAp4

https://youtu.be/TmENMZFUU_0

 

[A Link to the Past]

"Sometimes you have to give up. " Harry Reid 2016

How noble.

Yes, giving up is sometimes a better option than continuing to fight. This is not new, nor is it controversial. Continuing to fight also does not help his image when he is continuing to fight against Hillary rather than fighting against Trump like he said he would.

 

[kirblar]

He may not have started the stink. But Bernie has effectively worn the stink. So I have to hold my nose, but I can still rationally look at him as a possibility just like I would Hillary. This election cycle has the aura of weird around it so anything can happen and if Bernie wants to pull Hillary as hard to the left as he can, I'm ok with it.

Because when the election is over, it will be up to us to keep pulling her unless you really want a conservative neo-liberal third way Democrat for the next 8 years. I'd like her to at least be socially liberal instead of moderate.

He's never been running to try and pull the party to the left. He's been running to try and emulate what Trump's done on the GOP side.

That narrative doesn't reflect the reality of his campaign's behavior over the past 6 months.

 

[akira28]

He's never been running to try and pull the party to the left. He's been running to try and emulate what Trump's done on the GOP side.

That narrative doesn't reflect the reality of his campaign's behavior over the past 6 months.

well, thats one opinion.

 

[Horns]

Bernie only continues to splinter the party. Harry Reid is right. On Tuesday, I expect Bernie to man up.

 

[The Lamonster]

Reid is a Hillary shill so nobody will believe this guy.

I'm seeing this a lot these days. Anyone that supports Hillary is a shill for her; a corrupt establishment politician who doesn't care about the people and is only interested in keeping big corporations in power. And the latest is that they're involved in "espionage" lol

 

[A Link to the Past]

Bernie did a good job at one point of pulling Hillary left, but I don't feel that much of his recent efforts have been successful at that (I don't know that I believe that his recent efforts have been about that).

 

[captive]

if i had more time i would go back to the 2008 primary threads and cross reference posters now saying that Bernie should drop out with whether or not they said hillary should drop out against Obama.

 

[Kettch]

Should probably just wait a few days until the math is finished and then get on him if he still isn't conceding. I fully expect Sanders to concede once Clinton has a majority of the pledged delegates, he's just saying "we're in it until the end" like every candidate does before they drop out. No real reason to rile up Sanders supporters with stuff like this until it's an actual problem.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

if i had more time i would go back to the 2008 primary threads and cross reference posters now saying that Bernie should drop out with whether or not they said hillary should drop out against Obama.

You should make the time to do that.

 

[Stumpokapow]

We're saying Hillary stayed in because she had a chance. Bernie doesn't remotely and it's getting on people's nerves.

Yes I understand what you're saying, I'm pointing out that if you begin from the position that Bernie should drop out, which is explicitly what I'm accusing you of doing, and then con yourself into back-filling whether or not he has a chance, you'll come up with some metrics that define whether or not he has a chance and come up with the answer no.

Hillary Clinton did not have a chance on June 1st, 2008. She did not have a chance on May 28th, 2008. She certainly did not have a chance on June 4th, 2008. Bernie does not have a chance now. No one is compelled to drop out the second they don't have a chance, and more importantly, it doesn't matter when they drop out.

Yeah, the deluded Bernie fans who think he's going to win are annoying, but it's also annoying--maybe even moreso--to see Hillary fans yell and yell until they're blue about something that doesn't matter. You won. Magnanimity in victory, not shitting on the loser because he won't admit he's a loser in strong enough terms for you.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

"Sometimes you have to give up. " Harry Reid 2016

How noble.

"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

If the man who wrote the book on war said it, it's pretty noble to me. Sometimes it's better to not fight and accept the loose. Bernie isn't going to win, and remaining in the fight has made him come out a bitter old man as of late, attacking people and groups of people that are considered allies but fail his purity test. It's just hurting his message overall considering he's the messenger of it, and I say that as a person who was excited for Bernie and now downright despise him.

Bernie did a good job at one point of pulling Hillary left, but I don't feel that much of his recent efforts have been successful at that (I don't know that I believe that his recent efforts have been about that).

This is something I felt too. Bernie did his job well and pulled Clinton further left, but now...

 

[Orbis Tabula]

if i had more time i would go back to the 2008 primary threads and cross reference posters now saying that Bernie should drop out with whether or not they said hillary should drop out against Obama.

I believe most of GAF was pro-Obama back then, and anti-Hillary, so I imagine what few posters are still around would be calling for both losing candidates to drop out during those respective races.

 

[Aaron Strife]

if i had more time i would go back to the 2008 primary threads and cross reference posters now saying that Bernie should drop out with whether or not they said hillary should drop out against Obama.

I didn't post in political threads much (or at all?) back then but yes there were many people saying Hillary should drop out in 2008 too.

This is such an odd assumption to make.

 

[DarkKyo]

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Yes I understand what you're saying, I'm pointing out that if you begin from the position that Bernie should drop out, which is explicitly what I'm accusing you of doing, and then con yourself into back-filling whether or not he has a chance, you'll come up with some metrics that define whether or not he has a chance and come up with the answer no.

Hillary Clinton did not have a chance on June 1st, 2008. She did not have a chance on May 28th, 2008. She certainly did not have a chance on June 4th, 2008. Bernie does not have a chance now. No one is compelled to drop out the second they don't have a chance, and more importantly, it doesn't matter when they drop out.

Yeah, the deluded Bernie fans who think he's going to win are annoying, but it's also annoying--maybe even moreso--to see Hillary fans yell and yell until they're blue about something that doesn't matter. You won. Magnanimity in victory, not shitting on the loser because he won't admit he's a loser in strong enough terms for you.

Also agreed. This freaking out over Bernie is beyond tiresome.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Bernie is pretty much the Ron Paul of this election. Keep fighting though.

this argument was made often a year ago and he's already proven to have performed orders of magnitude better than ron paul did. win or lose, bernie blew expectations out of the water.

the ron paul comparisons ended up being completely wrong.

 

[Hazmat]

if i had more time i would go back to the 2008 primary threads and cross reference posters now saying that Bernie should drop out with whether or not they said hillary should drop out against Obama.

I was an Obama supporter in 2008 that said that Clinton should drop out. I'm a Clinton supporter in 2016 that thinks that Sanders should drop out. I make logical decisions that push the Democratic Party in the direction I want. Dig up my posts. I'll wait.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Yes I understand what you're saying, I'm pointing out that if you begin from the position that Bernie should drop out, which is explicitly what I'm accusing you of doing, and then con yourself into back-filling whether or not he has a chance, you'll come up with some metrics that define whether or not he has a chance and come up with the answer no.

Hillary Clinton did not have a chance on June 1st, 2008. She did not have a chance on May 28th, 2008. She certainly did not have a chance on June 4th, 2008. Bernie does not have a chance now. No one is compelled to drop out the second they don't have a chance, and more importantly, it doesn't matter when they drop out.

Yeah, the deluded Bernie fans who think he's going to win are annoying, but it's also annoying--maybe even moreso--to see Hillary fans yell and yell until they're blue about something that doesn't matter. You won. Magnanimity in victory, not shitting on the loser because he won't admit he's a loser in strong enough terms for you.

Personally, I like Bernie more than I dislike Bernie. Voted for him even. The reason why I want him to drop out is not inherently because he doesn't have a chance, but because I want to see a full-force attack against Trump sooner rather than later, and I'm stressed by both the possibility of Trump gaining traction from the continued competition between Bernie and Hillary as well as from the concern that Bernie may not stay 100% true to his vow to keep a Republican out of the White House. Am I being kind of paranoid? Yes, maybe even very. It's less about me wanting Hillary to be the winner and more about me wanting the convention be over, regardless of who wins.

 

[kirblar]

I didn't post in political threads much (or at all?) back then but yes there were many people saying Hillary should drop out in 2008 too.

This is such an odd assumption to make.

When she did "keep running" it was a symbolic gesture. They weren't actively contesting at that point.