Bernie's 2020 Campaign: August 2016 - At least through April, apparently

Dennis_Seelbach said:


nan said:

 I think that was part of this:
Senate Report on Russian Interference Was Written By Disinformation Warriors Behind Alabama ‘False Flag Operation’
 Surprise...A piece by Dan Cohen, a correspondent at RT America, catches nan's eye.

Dan Cohen is a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. Dan is a correspondent at RT America and tweets at @DanCohen3000.

 Ok, what part of the story is not FACTUALLY Correct?   I'm waiting. 

And by the way, Facebook suspended at least one of these guys for this.  Here is a non-Russian source on that:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/22/facebook-suspends-five-accounts-including-social-media-researcher-for-misleading-tactics-in-alabama-election/


Any Dem candidate must be able to face Trump down in a one-on-one debate.The thought of Bernie Sanders on the stage alone debating Trump makes me cringe in fear.  


nan said:


mrincredible said:

ml1 said:
I suppose if no one here believes any of the post-election polling, there's no convincing anyone of anything.  But there isn't any post hoc analysis of the election that I've seen that indicates Sanders candidacy was a major factor that cost Clinton the presidency.  If anything cost her the most, it was people of color who had voted for Obama but stayed home in '16.  I don't know if those folks were influenced by Sanders, but they certainly don't fit the "Bernie bro" stereotype.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Of course when the result was essentially a coin flip in three states, ANY factor that boosted Trump a little or detracted from Clinton a little could be pointed to as a critical factor in the outcome.
 African American voters were directly targeted by Russian operatives using social media. The goal was to discourage them from voting for Clinton.  Just one factor among many that has us living in a banana republic.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjV8_XMosjgAhWBiOAKHW3dCRgQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Frussians-took-aim-at-black-voters-to-boost-trump-reports-to-senate-find-11545066563&psig=AOvVaw34ZF4O3qVvSJu5AI0qkdYo&ust=1550681961201078&cshid=1550595558808
 I think that was part of this:
Senate Report on Russian Interference Was Written By Disinformation Warriors Behind Alabama ‘False Flag Operation’

 So they showed that they know how it worked when Russia did it. That means they know what they're talking about. 


oots said:
ugh


too old
too many running
democrats will self destruct

 Disagree.  I think the Democrats will be better off having a robust primary process with a large number of candidates at the outset, winnowing down in the normal-course political process.  As opposed to having an annointed front-runner from the start, which worked out so well in 2016.


nan said:


jamie said:
70% of people want Medicare for All.  80% like it because it sounds easy to accomplish (last percentage was my guess)
It's a great buzzword - but it also could jeopardize a program that is currently working for people who need it.  
 The current program is not sustainable due to cost.  People only have good healthcare if they happen to work at a place that provides it and subsidizes it at a reasonable cost. Even then, costs are still going up--few people have good, inexpensive insurance now.  If they lose their job, they are screwed.  If they get divorced they are screwed.  If they get sick and can't work anymore they are screwed.  Only one way to have it work and lots of ways to get screwed out of it=not a good system. 

That's a lousy response to a buzzword of a program that may or may not work.

Any candidate who is running on Medicare for All as their only possible solution for our healthcare crisis is not a realist.  It's idiotic at this stage.


An Octogenarian Socialist?  Sign me up.


The_Soulful_Mr_T said:
Any Dem candidate must be able to face Trump down in a one-on-one debate.The thought of Bernie Sanders on the stage alone debating Trump makes me cringe in fear.  

 I am interested in why you feel that way.

I do not agree because I think Bernie would not put up with any of Trump's crap. 

But I am 90% sure we will never find out.


Big difference this year.  The playing field has been made much more level.  Many super delegates have been relegated to the dust bin of history.  This will be a much more democratic race with no anointed one starting way a head of the pack. The winner will do so on his/her merits and not

political connections.  Feel the Bern.


I never took my "Bernie" sign down. But I'm all-in for Tulsi. I think the best outcome would be Tulsi for Pres, Bernie for VP. Maybe I'll put up a Tulsi-Bernie sign.

And Elizabeth is my third choice. Great Barrington, July 2018:


Paul

A ticket with one from Hawaii and one from Vermont. I guess your not one that think the road to victory runs through the Middle of the Country.


STANV said:
Paul
A ticket with one from Hawaii and one from Vermont. I guess your not one that think the road to victory runs through the Middle of the Country.

 Tulsi starts in Honolulu, Bernie starts in Burlington and they meet in front of Tom Sawyer's fence in Hannibal, MO. Campaign Americana.


Robert_Casotto said:
An Octogenarian Socialist?  Sign me up.

 Easily beats an Octogenarian Fascist.


nan said:


Dennis_Seelbach said:


nan said:

 I think that was part of this:
Senate Report on Russian Interference Was Written By Disinformation Warriors Behind Alabama ‘False Flag Operation’
 Surprise...A piece by Dan Cohen, a correspondent at RT America, catches nan's eye.

Dan Cohen is a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. Dan is a correspondent at RT America and tweets at @DanCohen3000.
 Ok, what part of the story is not FACTUALLY Correct?   I'm waiting. 
And by the way, Facebook suspended at least one of these guys for this.  Here is a non-Russian source on that:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/22/facebook-suspends-five-accounts-including-social-media-researcher-for-misleading-tactics-in-alabama-election/

 The most telling aspect of the Democratic fake Russian Facebook posts in the Alabama election were these two passages of the NY Times story:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html

The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million, including the primaries, according to Federal Election Commission records.

. . . The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore
Yet we are supposed to believe that $100,000 spent on Facebook ads (many not placed during the election) in the $2.5 billion national Presidential election made the difference.

$100,000 too small to make a difference in Alabama, but not too small to make a difference in the USA.


Paul - You've posted several times on Twitter since the 2016 election  that you were through with Bernie. 


paulsurovell said:
I never took my "Bernie" sign down. But I'm all-in for Tulsi. I think the best outcome would be Tulsi for Pres, Bernie for VP. Maybe I'll put up a Tulsi-Bernie sign.
And Elizabeth is my third choice. Great Barrington, July 2018:

 I'm with you on Warren. She's one of my top picks.


Morganna said:


paulsurovell said:
I never took my "Bernie" sign down. But I'm all-in for Tulsi. I think the best outcome would be Tulsi for Pres, Bernie for VP. Maybe I'll put up a Tulsi-Bernie sign.
And Elizabeth is my third choice. Great Barrington, July 2018:
 I'm with you on Warren. She's one of my top picks.

Great choice.

Warren actually produced, having done something very useful to us. When she was a Harvard Law professor she came up with the CPFB idea and was the architect of its creation.

We know that the CPFB was very effective considering how very quickly the Republicans under Trump castrated it.


Great article in The Federalist by Michael Tracy on the most common Bernie bashing points.

The Naysayers Are Wrong. Bernie Sanders Is A Formidable 2020 Contender

Also,

CNN will be giving him a townhall with Wolf Blitzer next Monday at 8:00 PM.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/cnn-town-hall-bernie-sanders/index.html



nan said:
Great article in The Federalist by Michael Tracy on the most common Bernie bashing points.
The Naysayers Are Wrong. Bernie Sanders Is A Formidable 2020 Contender

Ugh - written by a major Bernie loyalist and Hillary hater.  Typical.  Why not post an article by someone who isn't publicly loyal to the candidate they're writing about.   


Whether you like Bernie on the issues or not, at this stage you have to concede he is the frontrunner with a lot of advantages - name recognition, experience in campaigning and fundraising at the national level and a long list of supporters. The main difference seems to be that last time he basically had one serious opponent, Hillary, now he competes in a much more crowded field.


nan said:

CNN will be giving him a townhall with Wolf Blitzer next Monday at 8:00 PM.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/cnn-town-hall-bernie-sanders/index.html

I’m stumped. How did Sanders get a CNN town hall without all the TimeWarner employee donors Kamala Harris has?

(Coincidentally, No. 3 and No. 2 on Harris’ contributor list are No. 1 and No. 2 on Sanders’: Google and the University of California. The difference being that individuals from those two employers have given three times more to Bernie.)


cramer said:
Paul - You've posted several times on Twitter since the 2016 election  that you were through with Bernie. 

 I probably said I was disappointed in what he did with Our Revolution and his drinking the Kool-Aid on Russiagate, but other than that he's got a great agenda and is the second-best candidate in the field.


ugh Bernie. His role now should be getting behind the elected nominee like he should have done two years ago. He’s a big reason for the mess we are in now.


This Democratic election is going to spell disaster in 2 years. Too many people in this thing will create an even more hugely divided party. We saw how that ended...


I figure I'll give it one more shot to argue for the validity of (at least some) post-election polling.  While it's true that the ballot is secret, the fact that a person casts a ballot is not secret, and his/her registered party affiliation is also a matter of public record.  So while we may not be able to know for certain which candidate a person voted for, we can know that they voted, and what party they belong to.

In 2016, Pew Research verified that the people responding in their survey panel had actually shown up at the polls for the election.  Their topline results match the actual national election results pretty closely.  So to doubt a study like Pew, we'd have to assume that people either couldn't recall the votes they cast, or chose to be dishonest.  We'd also have to assume they weren't forthcoming with demographic information about themselves.  I don't think there's any evidence that there's widespread lying in polls about gender, age, race, etc.

http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/

With regard to surveys of non-voters, there might be more margin for error in response. People who report that they didn't vote in the election might be misremembering, although again it seems highly unlikely that someone would have voted in an election and a few months later report that they did not.  If anything, there's a more likely social desirability bias in favor of non-voters saying they actually did vote.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

None of this is to suggest that there aren't apparent biases in the Election Day exit polls.  There is some evidence that older voters in particular don't get sampled in voter precincts on Election Day.  But these post election polls appear to be conducted in a more rigorous manner, and don't have the same kind of systematic biases as the Election Day exit polls.

These data aren't going to be perfect, but IMHO it's better to look at survey data from a source like Pew to look back at 2016 than to just go from one's gut to try and explain what happened.  Especially if people are trying to avoid repeating the outcome from the last election.  And from every bit of info I've seen, Clinton would have easily won the election had her campaign been able to turn out just a couple of percent more people under age 35 and people of color.  Success in 2020 for the Democrats should be focusing on that.  The white people over 35 who turned out in 2016 aren't likely to sit out 2020 no matter which of the currently declared candidates gets the nomination in '20.


Heck, I can give it one more shot, too. It’s one thing to cite polls as evidence, to help understand what may be true: “There’s some evidence that Sanders’ primary supporters voted for Clinton at about the same rate that Clinton supporters voted for Obama in ’08.” It’s another thing to stipulate the results as facts in support of an argument: “Sanders' primary supporters voted for Clinton at a higher rate than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in '08.”

I prefer the first thing. ETA: Which is more along the lines of the post just above this one.


DaveSchmidt said:
Heck, I can give it one more shot, too. It’s one thing to cite polls as evidence, to help understand what may be true: “There’s some evidence that Sanders’ primary supporters voted for Clinton at about the same rate that Clinton supporters voted for Obama in ’08.” It’s another thing to stipulate the results as facts in support of an argument: “Sanders' primary supporters voted for Clinton at a higher rate than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in '08.”
I prefer the first thing. ETA: Which is more along the lines of the post just above this one.

If that's your criticism, I'll cop to it.  But it's out of frustration. I've made the claim in your more qualified summary a bunch of times and I don't think a single person here has paid attention to it.  It's conventional wisdom that Sanders cost Clinton the election, dammit. 


Sooo. If there was indeed a block of voters in key precincts who siphoned off votes from Clinton and preferred Bernie, ( I don’t know if that was the case), it remains that they were not as large a group as Clinton voters. Where are they now? Who are they?


ml1 said:

If that's your criticism, I'll cop to it.  But it's out of frustration. I've made the claim in your more qualified summary a bunch of times and I don't think a single person here has paid attention to it.  It's conventional wisdom that Sanders cost Clinton the election, dammit. 

To be fair to the frustrating masses, the 2008 and 2016 presidential elections were decided by different margins. Just because a 2016 voting trend of X had no effect on the result when it was matched in 2008 doesn’t mean it had no effect eight years later, right?


You’d still have an argument that you shouldn’t blame “natural” trends, but it wouldn’t necessarily blow them out of the water.


DaveSchmidt said:


ml1 said:

If that's your criticism, I'll cop to it.  But it's out of frustration. I've made the claim in your more qualified summary a bunch of times and I don't think a single person here has paid attention to it.  It's conventional wisdom that Sanders cost Clinton the election, dammit. 
To be fair to the frustrating masses, the 2008 and 2016 presidential elections were decided by different margins. Just because a 2016 voting trend of X had no effect on the result when it was matched in 2008 doesn’t mean it had no effect eight years later, right?

I'm not suggesting the elections are the same.  But the people claiming Sanders' candidacy cost Clinton the election don't have any evidence that it did.  And if someone did have information that strongly refuted the stuff I'm linking to, I'd accept that.  But it isn't really a strange and radical idea that a presidential candidate doesn't get all of his/her party's voters.  Trump didn't get all the voters who supported his primary opponents.  Neither did McCain, or Obama.   

When 80,000 votes spread out over 3 states cost Clinton the election, we can plausibly claim any number of things were the cause.  But if we're going to make claims we should have something more than gut.  And if someone presents evidence to the contrary, I'd hope that people would consider it instead of ignoring it.   Or better yet, show some awesome data that proves me wrong.  I'd actually be interested in seeing that.


conandrob240 said:
ugh Bernie. His role now should be getting behind the elected nominee like he should have done two years ago. He’s a big reason for the mess we are in now.


This Democratic election is going to spell disaster in 2 years. Too many people in this thing will create an even more hugely divided party. We saw how that ended...

 https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.