Sanders wins Wyoming Caucus; ties pledged delegates; math; rules :(
- Thread starter Zipzo
- Start date
- Status
I don't think the statement can be fairly applied to most Bernie supporters.
However, if you claim to support Bernie's goals but considered voting for Trump or Paul then I'm pretty comfortable saying you have an incorrect perception of at least one of the above people.
Tesseract
Banned
The onus is yours to elaborate, you called them stupid. I facepalmed your spurious, gut feeling declaration.
The vast majority of Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary in the general election, but Hillary supporters don't want to believe that. Why is this?
stufte
Member
Obviously anecdotal, and it's sometimes hard to see past the internet bias that being online exposes you to, but most of the Bernie supporters I interact with are in their 40's with kids and don't spend their time online "memeing it up". They are highly informed and know why they are voting for Bernie. The caucus I voted in here in Colorado had Bernie fans of every age group, from college age kids to the elderly. People tend to see only the internet excitement about him and immediately assume every voter is exactly the same.
Some of you need to get off the net and actually interface with other humans in real life and you'd be surprised how informed most people are.
I have elaborated. I have stated that I think:
- There is a group of well-informed Sanders supporters.
- There is a group of Sanders supporters that are likely not well-informed on him and simply know him on the premise of him being prominent on popular sites such as NeoGAF and Reddit.
- This group likely understands the basic tenants of Sanders' plans- free college, tax the rich, break up the banks.
- This group likely does not understand the stepping stones needed for this to occur, the working across the aisle that is unlikely to happen, etc.
- This group also exists for every candidate- there are certainly groups that will vote Hillary because of the name, or because she's a woman; Trump, because he's all over the media and "speaks his mind"; Cruz, because he's up there with God or something.
- The groups for the other candidates may not be as large simply because they aren't exposed as much on social media. It's entirely possible but without being able to read about it online I can't make much of a guess.
I don't think Sanders supporters are stupid. Nowhere have I said that. I have elaborated my points a little more here. My main point is that I think a larger subset of his supporters are uninformed than the subset of other candidates' supporters that are uninformed, mainly because of the social media exposure, and that worries me.
Hmm, I haven't thought too much about that. I don't follow the Hillary campaign too much and don't know really how they feel about it all.
This all is also true. Being online really is only a sample. Everything I speak of (and pretty much any opinion) is, naturally, anecdotal.
I don't deny that it seems the party isn't really behind Bernie, but saying it's rigged based on super delegates is flimsy. If that were the case Hilary would've been nominated over Obama. The super delegates will, for the most part, follow the popular opinion. Right now that opinion is that overall Hilary is winning.
I think this is a misunderstanding. Hillary supporters generally do want to believe that. They're just afraid they're wrong.
Tesseract
Banned
i think you're projecting hard here, those are flimsy observations
Were you worried about Hillaryis44 in 2008?
darkstar0155
Member
I wouldn't state that at all, ive seen a lot of people on my FB feed that are jumping on the "Bernie bandwagon" without looking past the slogans and populism (like the other poster said "free college" "break up the banks" "tax the rich")
plus I notice more than a few of them support him because "Hillary's the devil/shrill/sell out/in the pocket of wall street/big business/etc" that the right has pushed.
Oh, and some that support him because they have boughten into the "we need a political revolution and im the outsider" narrative, without looking deep into his policies.
Yes, his anecdotal evidence, my anecdotal evidence, and your anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
digitalrelic
Banned
I understand fully that the odds that Bernie wins the nom are very low. But let's be honest. He's won 8 out of the last 9 states. He has 1069 delegates to Hillary's 1289 if you don't include superdelegates. Several of the states he won, he was projected to lose a couple months ago. He's gained momentum. There's no way around that. It's not like the United States has emphatically declared Hillary as a landslide winner and Bernie as a head in the clouds, pipedream loser who never stood a chance. Bernie's gotten further than almost anyone expected him to. Way further than I'm sure Hillary is comfortable with.
But yes, I agree that too many excuses have been made. The only way the American public would truly deserve to be furious is if Bernie managed to win more delegates than Hillary, but Hillary got the nom because superdelegates. I don't see that happening though.
Well, what do you think? I may very well be projecting. Help me not if that's not the case, I don't want to have an "I think, you think", I'd want to discuss it.
exmachina64
Banned
You're my hero.
Why do I keep seeing this mistake on GAF? The word is "tenets".
I also keep seeing people use "barometer" unironically.
I wasn't following politics closely in 2008, so I'm not a good example for that question.
Velcro Fly
Member
I for one am shocked that the candidate that isn't really a Democrat and is campaigning as an outsider is not getting the support of the party.
Also if we were fully proportional she'd have more than she currently has. I'm not sure the numbers but Bernie has a disproportionate number of delegates compared to his actual share of the vote.
Not rigged. Just people reporting facts to fit a narrative.
Also if we were fully proportional she'd have more than she currently has. I'm not sure the numbers but Bernie has a disproportionate number of delegates compared to his actual share of the vote.
Not rigged. Just people reporting facts to fit a narrative.
eBay Huckster
Member
Fun fact: this accounts for roughly 70 delegates as of Wyoming, which means her lead's 140 less than it would be if the system was actually fully proportional.
brianmcdoogle
Member
Honestly, after the "controversy" about newspapers giving endorsements ("How can they do that?!??!"), it dawned on me that there are people voting for the first time in this election who were in grade school in 2008 and no nothing about politics or the electoral process.
So, always be aware of that when discussing politics online.
This metric only matters to people trying to overstate his chances.
This is very close to becoming a "trigger word" for me.
That's actually very far behind. His landslide victories in western caucuses only dented it, and that dent will probably disappear over the next two weeks, if not get a shiny new coat painted over it.
As for the rest, sure. He's done well. He's beaten expectations depending on whose expectations you're looking at. He's not getting demolished, by any means. But the writing's on the wall and I'm looking to the future, where people will still be in denial as to how he lost.
(Don't mean to be snarky, I know you wrote that you understand his low chances at this juncture and otherwise agree with my post. But the word "momentum" always generates a response from me, if not a murderous rampage.)
eBay Huckster
Member
Also, minor quibble, but the pledged delegates currently stand at 1305 to 1086.
darkstar0155
Member
Your post seems to flow very well from your mind to the page... its almost like you could say your thoughts/opinions have..... momentum ;0
Seems relevant to the topic at hand, Full Frontal did a bit on super delegates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtuWiHYmr4U
Who has the most accurate numbers because The Green Papers (which many people like to source) has different numbers: 1309 to 1095?
He had plenty stacked against him as well, untill McCain freaked and started imposing self inflicted wounds, the Dems and he were far from a shoe in. The Beltway went hard Hillary, untill he passed her in pledged delegates and even then..
Coverage is due to those who win.
Bernies coverage has been pretty favoritible looking at the cross tabs and the uneventfullness of the primary so far.
Beating the math would bring more coverage, just as Obama beat the conventional wisdom and stayed ahead for months. Also why rightfully Bernie got tons of press after the Michigan upset. He over preformed there and he got the goods.
Otherwise, Bernie has not done that. It's really that simple. He hasn't made inroads into the demographics he needs to, there hasn't been some miracle where different regions are voting very differently, and the map has not changed since early the super Tuesday predictions. About the only thing that's new worthy is the funds he's able to raise, and that has been getting press.
My thoughts have kinetic energy.
eBay Huckster
Member
I've been oscillating between sourcing them and the NYT (though I'm interested as to what the hell the NYT's doing differently given the difference)
Velcro Fly
Member
political parties also only exist to get people elected. that is it.
anything else politicians tell you is smoke, mirrors, and bullshit.
it is an apparatus to get people elected and nothing more.
they don't have to be neutral and let things play out when it comes to superdelegates. they don't have to "listen to the people" because 85% of delegates on the Democratic side are the will of the people.
Was there this much bitching and whining when Trump won Florida and got all or when Kasich won Ohio and got all? Imagine if the democrats had winner take all states and Hillary won one.
anything else politicians tell you is smoke, mirrors, and bullshit.
it is an apparatus to get people elected and nothing more.
they don't have to be neutral and let things play out when it comes to superdelegates. they don't have to "listen to the people" because 85% of delegates on the Democratic side are the will of the people.
Was there this much bitching and whining when Trump won Florida and got all or when Kasich won Ohio and got all? Imagine if the democrats had winner take all states and Hillary won one.
Tesseract
Banned
why would i help you in this exchange, i'm not gonna generalize without data :0. we'll agree to disagree.
You're talking about the current situation, I'm talking about the fact that Clinton's had the superdelegates altogether in her corner since the beginning, which, while they could change later on it's influencing the race before a single vote is cast.
Yeah, you seem to be having the same trouble understanding what I'm saying. You're talking about the race as it is now, not the system's problems. How is Sanders benefitting from the delegate rules of the DNC? Want to explain that or just make claims.
Also, yes, it's narrative when you say sanders is a fringe candidate with no chance of winning before the election even starts. Again, you can say he's not going to win now, sure that makes sense, but saying it's cold hard truth before it even begins is a lie. You also would have said he'd come nowhere close to where he's gotten to and that no one would agree to his policies, let alone more than 40% of democratic primary voters.
Sanders supporters are the one confused about superdelegates guys? We're talking about the DNC, Republicans don't use superdelegates.
But to address your point:
Even if that's how they're supposed to function, that's not how they operate. It's like saying terrorist laws where we can label someone a terrorist and take away rights is okay because, well it helps with dealing with terrorists. But it can and probably is misused.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
It's been explained several times that Sanders has more delegates than his proportional vote totals suggest, among other things. Conveniently, TPM laid it out today:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/time-to-reform-big-sanders
McCain was a lamb to the slaughter, there is very little he could have done to win the election against Obama. He confounded all his problems by making the most horrible VP pick in recent history.
When referencing coverage I'm talking about specifically the 10 minutes of airtime Bernie received for all of 2015 on mainstream news. The other coverage he recevied was about how he has no chance and pundits wondering why they are losing TrumpTime covering the democratic race.
Obama had plenty of coverage before winning anything due to there being a gazzillion Dem debates.
He has made inroads and the only demographics he is constantly losing by big margins right now are older voters and African Americans.
In terms of how underplayed Sanders campaign and all the volunteers involved are being once again downplayed is staggering. So I will go ahead and link some details that since it doesn't appear you understand how people have effected his campaign without even having direct coordination with the campaign.
Inside Bernie Sanders' vast, virtual ground game
How the Sanders Campaign Is Reinventing the Use of Tech in Politics
Bernie’s Army of Coders
eBay Huckster
Member
Literally, because of
- threshold rules, and
- the fact that a given percentage of the vote can manifest itself very differently between congressional district delegate calculations, PLEO delegate calculations, and at-large delegate calculations
he has 69 more pledged delegates than his share of the national popular vote would indicate.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Well, it certainly sounds like he has a point if you don't know the intricacies of the primary process.
Interesting, and thanks for the explanation. It does sound like the system was set up in the way it's set up for a good reason. Unfortunately, it's not perfectly straightforward like a popular vote winner takes all system would be, so it's easy to see why people might feel like it's rigged if they don't know better.
Box of Kittens
Banned
It's a pretty complicated system, particularly where caucuses are concerned, but it actually does a fairly good job of translating votes into delegates. The whole primary process has been built up in a piecemeal fashion over a matter of years and it shows.
This is how it's worked forever, over 40+ years IIRC. It even happened in Hillarys favor in 2008. But that didn't stop Obama from strolling in and crushing the buildings. And like always, once he did that, Supers swapped like they always do. Bernie has had every opportunity his predecessors have had. He failed to get the votes he needed. That's why he is losing, and that's why he won't get the supers.
But hey, if you can show me your history of being appalled about Supers being able to choose early and switch later from yeaaaars ago, instead of a convenient opposition to it today as your candidate loses; then I will at least give you points for consistency.
Lets answer that, directly:
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Also Caucuses in general benefit Bernie Sanders and especially his voting base disproportionately. Its a nice benefit to him:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...te-caucuses-but-hes-about-to-run-out-of-them/
The rest of your post is just you being upset that people predict elections before votes are cast, but that's a waste of discussion because that will and has always happened.
In the end. Bernie isn't losing because of supers. Hes losing because he doesn't have the votes and more people want Hillary than they do Bernie. I would be significantly more open to the discussion of Supers being evil terrible things that are thwarting the will of the people if the candidate behind that rhetoric wasn't losing the popular by 3 million some odd votes.
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
My man, who exactly do you think the Superdelegates influenced? Are you really trying to imply that average voter even knows that Superdelegates even existed before this race started? That they made it a priority to check delegate totals and then since Clinton was ahead just vote for her? If this was a race between two no name Democrats you might have a case. The problem is that anyone and everyone knows and has formed an opinion on Clinton before this whole thing started. The fact that she was Hillary Clinton had 99% more to do with her getting votes(or not) than any type of superdelegate lead.
Hell even most of the Bernie supporters that I've seen bitching and moaning about Superdelegates seems to only have found out about them midway through the primary process. Which coincided with South Carolina and the huge mountain he would have to climb in pledged delegates. There are so many hills to make make a point on and this is the one you choose to waste your breath on? That superdelegates affected votes among the average voter with HILLARY CLINTON in the Primary Race for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY? Come on...
I think the idea isn't so much that the masses care about who a superdelegate decides to vote for... it's more so that adding the substantial number of superdelegate votes that pledge to a specific candidate ahead of most of the population getting to cast their vote is undemocratic because it gives one candidate a huge early boost/lead over the other. It can make a big difference to those that don't entirely understand the superdelegate grab because it influences their interest in caring about voting when their candidate already appears so far behind.
It is absolutely a system designed to give the party some crazy influence over who will likely be their candidate.
And if we say that's true, that's...bad? Why?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I completely dispute and, quite frankly, question the political know-how of anyone who was influenced by a few sites using that total instead of just the pledged one. Because if you stay home for something that is pretty damn easy to Google (and given his key demographics, that isn't asking a lot of his supporters), then you weren't interested to begin with.
Thankfully, I don't believe most Bernie supporters are idiots. Most are reasonable (that I've met), and they understand how political activity should go, and how math works. Good people.
neurosisxeno
Member
Are any of the people who keep linking to the RCP vote totals going to ever acknowledge that--as I pointed out on the 3rd page--it doesn't account for votes in Caucuses at all? Granted, Caucuses tend to have lower turnout, completely ignoring those votes heavily skews it in favor of Clinton. I don't doubt she is winning the Popular Vote, but it's definitely not by the 2.4 - 3 million votes I keep seeing quoted, unless you think Sanders somehow won a majority of the caucuses with less than a majority of votes within those caucuses.
Do you think he won the caucuses he did by a numbers large enough to lower that gap by any substantial amount?
Do you believe, for example, he's gotten half a million MORE votes than Hillary in caucuses?
I'm making a point about why supers exist in the first place to expressly stop what's happening in the Republican primary. It's to stop Trump-like insurgents, not Bernie-like ones.
That doesn't mean I agree with them. I've already said I don't. But please don't suggest that I don't understand how this system works because I was making a rhetorical device to show you why they exist, in theory.
neurosisxeno
Member
It's entirely possible. We just have no way of knowing. I'm just not a fan of the fact that I've seen people say Hillary is "dominating" the Popular Vote, when the only numbers we have completely ignore almost a dozen contests. If Sanders' supporters deserve criticism for not "caring" about Democratic voters in Southern States, Clinton's deserve equal criticism for saying (at the very least implying) Democrats in Caucus States somehow aren't as important.
Who is saying that?
Oh yes this post, all over my face please.
If anything, the "anti-democratic" system is actually helping Bernie. As FiveThirtyEight has said, Bernie has a larger share of delegates than of actual people voting for him, all thanks to the same caucus system that gave him those few delegates in Wyoming.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked