|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives.
are you saying that Krugman and Stiglitz (among the most qualified) did not understand the crisis? that would supprise me
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 06 2016 22:19 Soularion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:14 Kipsate wrote:
I don't think people expect Sanders to lay out a complete plan but they expect a better response to a question he build his platform on. Something, anything, even saying that you have experts or w/e to create policy. I imagine he already talked with experts about something. It comes across as insecure/unprepared.
I don't think its a big deal but the public might think it is. Mhm, exactly. I predict it'll hurt him but it won't decide anything, as the amount of voters he turns off probably won't be that much higher than the amount of voters who find out about him because of this. It will entrench a lot of Clinton supporters though, which is probably the bigger deal.
it will likely not deter current Sanders supporters but might scare the ones who have not decided yet.
|
On April 06 2016 22:20 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:04 WhiteDog wrote:On April 06 2016 21:58 Acrofales wrote:On April 06 2016 21:51 WhiteDog wrote:
We know protesting is not good, the truth is in the middle right ?
What a lame vision of the world. Protesting is great. Show you're unhappy about what's happening. But it takes more to lead the country than standing in a square waving a flag. For instance, I am quite qualified to protest, but severely underqualified to be president. Sanders is increasingly showing that he isn't really qualified either. I disagree with your post entirely. A president is a representative, not an expert. You are the representative of a country of 300 millions people, don't tell me you can't ask for experts to find solutions that goes in accordance with the value that your electorate asked you to defend. A president is here to cut, not to mold. To go back to Obama, for exemple, many people at some point wanted him to hire Krugman or Stiglitz. Do you expect Obama to understand the financial market after one of the biggest crisis of the last century, while even the most qualified don't ? He just have to pick the right people, and tell them the objectives. are you saying that Krugman and Stiglitz (among the most qualified) did not understand the crisis? that would supprise me
Krugman is seen as the most biased columnist on the crisis, and he's been showed to be waaaaay off the mark on the crisis (he even looked at Estonia's austerity plan and without knowing anything about the country said that it will destroy our economy. Didn't happen though. In fact, we seem to be one of the best recovered countries).
There are a lot of modern economists who shun him, here's a nice piece for example. There's even a special page listing the false predictions he made: click here.
|
Regarding the Daily News interview, I see two different ideas that don't quite succumb to the same analysis. Some people try to analyze the effect this article will have on the democratic electorate. This is notoriously difficult to predict and if you believe 538, it's nearly inconsequential in this year's Dem race as their models work based on a few factors: mostly a percentage of minorities in the state + is it a caucus, open primary or closed primary.
The other people try to ask whether they as voters ought to demand more from Sanders. And the glib answer is yes: you should always ask for more details, more facts, more evidence, etc. It's always going to help you make a better informed decision. More realistically, there's a great deal of personal variation here that everyone ought to decide for themselves. We can help verbalize your thoughts, but I don't think anyone could expect (like Travis) that their criteria are somehow better than anyone else's. Just set your own bar and go from there. You'll always have to make trade-offs when choosing a candidate to support.
|
On April 06 2016 22:19 Soularion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:14 Kipsate wrote:
I don't think people expect Sanders to lay out a complete plan but they expect a better response to a question he build his platform on. Something, anything, even saying that you have experts or w/e to create policy. I imagine he already talked with experts about something. It comes across as insecure/unprepared.
I don't think its a big deal but the public might think it is. Mhm, exactly. I predict it'll hurt him but it won't decide anything, as the amount of voters he turns off probably won't be that much higher than the amount of voters who find out about him because of this. It will entrench a lot of Clinton supporters though, which is probably the bigger deal.
Agreed. No one jumps off the Bernie bus, as is the nature of the Bernie bus. But I don't think a single person who was undecided will vote for Sanders after that interview.
I mean, this alone is just...
Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have ... JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of ...
Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.
I just don't see how it is possible for Sanders to convince New York that his policies won't have negative consequences that New York uniquely carries. I think Bernie sees New York taking a hit from the financial sector taking a hit as worth it for the good of the country, and ultimately, the world economy. But that's not winning him New York.
|
Nbcnews did a lot of delegate math:
Trump must win 58% of remaining delegates to hit 1,237 magic number (was 56%) Cruz must win 87% of remaining delegates to hit 1,237 magic number (was 88%) Kasich must win 132% of remaining delegates to hit 1,237 magic number (was 127%) ... If Trump wins all of New York's 95 delegates, that 58% goes down to 53%. ... Despite his 14-point win, Sanders has picked up a net gain of just 10 pledged delegates out of Wisconsin so far Here's the problem for Sanders after his big win last night: He outspent Clinton over the Wisconsin airwaves by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, beat her by 14 percentage points, 57%-43%, but only picked up a net gain of just 10 pledged delegates. And despite that gain, the percentage of overall remaining delegates that Clinton needs to clinch the nomination actually got smaller (from 34% to 33%), because there are fewer delegates left to win. ... In pledged delegates, Clinton holds a 245-delegate lead over Sanders (it was 255) Clinton 1271 (55% of delegates won) Sanders 1026 (45%) In overall delegates (including superdelegates), Clinton holds a 670-delegate lead over Sanders (was 680) ... Clinton must win 33% of remaining delegates to hit 2383 magic number (was 34%) Sanders must win 67% of remaining delegates to hit 2383 magic number (was 66%) There's more to read.
I'm sure 538 will give an updated roadmap, but probably closer to NY.
|
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point.
|
Poor GreenHorizons is probably having an stroke reading these last 5 pages without the ability to respond.
|
On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point.
That's with supers, I think. I don't see it as impossible that supers will change sides if Bernie wins a majority. Albeit if we remember 2008, it wasn't just delegates but the majority of voters as well. 538 said this about it last night:
Most Sanders supporters are focused on whether their guy can close the lead Clinton has in pledged delegates between now and June. A narrow victory in Wisconsin tonight would be unlikely to put much of a dent in her current 220-delegate lead. But perhaps just as importantly, it wouldn’t put much of a dent in Clinton’s often-overlooked 2.5-million popular vote lead. Sanders supporters hypothesize that Clinton’s 469-to-31 lead in superdelegates will vanish if their candidate can win a majority of pledged delegates and claim the “will of the people.” But thanks to his reliance on low-turnout caucus states like Idaho and Washington, Sanders has won just 41 percent of votes, even though he’s won 45 percent of pledged delegates. Even in the very unlikely event that Sanders erases Clinton’s pledged delegate lead by June, Clinton would probably be able to persuade her superdelegates to stick with her by reminding them that she still won more actual votes than Sanders. Source
|
Canada2764 Posts
On April 06 2016 23:01 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. That's with supers, I think. I don't see it as impossible that supers will change sides if Bernie wins a majority. Albeit if we remember 2008, it wasn't just delegates but the majority of voters as well. 538 said this about it last night: Show nested quote +Most Sanders supporters are focused on whether their guy can close the lead Clinton has in pledged delegates between now and June. A narrow victory in Wisconsin tonight would be unlikely to put much of a dent in her current 220-delegate lead. But perhaps just as importantly, it wouldn’t put much of a dent in Clinton’s often-overlooked 2.5-million popular vote lead. Sanders supporters hypothesize that Clinton’s 469-to-31 lead in superdelegates will vanish if their candidate can win a majority of pledged delegates and claim the “will of the people.” But thanks to his reliance on low-turnout caucus states like Idaho and Washington, Sanders has won just 41 percent of votes, even though he’s won 45 percent of pledged delegates. Even in the very unlikely event that Sanders erases Clinton’s pledged delegate lead by June, Clinton would probably be able to persuade her superdelegates to stick with her by reminding them that she still won more actual votes than Sanders. Source
It'll be a messy situation. A very, very messy situation. I think no matter who wins the Democratic party certainly loses a lot if Bernie wins delegates and loses the popular vote, although I think the popular vote will change too if he wins as big in California as he needs to in order for him to win by delegates.
|
On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point.
How is believing in something that is rather unlikely creepy? whats creepy is how invested you all are in this cynical pseudo-realpolitik.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Is money even a large problem for Bernie? IIRC he has more money and spends more money then Clinton, is it possible to sustain it in the long term?
|
On April 06 2016 23:05 Soularion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 23:01 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. That's with supers, I think. I don't see it as impossible that supers will change sides if Bernie wins a majority. Albeit if we remember 2008, it wasn't just delegates but the majority of voters as well. 538 said this about it last night: Most Sanders supporters are focused on whether their guy can close the lead Clinton has in pledged delegates between now and June. A narrow victory in Wisconsin tonight would be unlikely to put much of a dent in her current 220-delegate lead. But perhaps just as importantly, it wouldn’t put much of a dent in Clinton’s often-overlooked 2.5-million popular vote lead. Sanders supporters hypothesize that Clinton’s 469-to-31 lead in superdelegates will vanish if their candidate can win a majority of pledged delegates and claim the “will of the people.” But thanks to his reliance on low-turnout caucus states like Idaho and Washington, Sanders has won just 41 percent of votes, even though he’s won 45 percent of pledged delegates. Even in the very unlikely event that Sanders erases Clinton’s pledged delegate lead by June, Clinton would probably be able to persuade her superdelegates to stick with her by reminding them that she still won more actual votes than Sanders. Source It'll be a messy situation. A very, very messy situation. I think no matter who wins the Democratic party certainly loses a lot if Bernie wins delegates and loses the popular vote, although I think the popular vote will change too if he wins as big in California as he needs to in order for him to win by delegates.
The thing about California is that it keeps getting talked about as if it is actually pretty reasonable to think Bernie will get those delegates. The conversation has become centered around an idea that is really outlandish to begin with. These California predictions are based on Bernie winning NJ, NY and a bunch of stuff that is straight up not happening.
On April 06 2016 23:13 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. How is believing in something that is rather unlikely creepy? whats creepy is how invested you all are in this cynical pseudo-realpolitik.
It's not that they are keeping hope alive or something like that. These Bernistas are convinced that Clinton is toast. They look at how many likes the latest anti-bank Bernie meme got on Facebook and celebrate the revolution.
|
On April 06 2016 23:05 Soularion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 23:01 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. That's with supers, I think. I don't see it as impossible that supers will change sides if Bernie wins a majority. Albeit if we remember 2008, it wasn't just delegates but the majority of voters as well. 538 said this about it last night: Most Sanders supporters are focused on whether their guy can close the lead Clinton has in pledged delegates between now and June. A narrow victory in Wisconsin tonight would be unlikely to put much of a dent in her current 220-delegate lead. But perhaps just as importantly, it wouldn’t put much of a dent in Clinton’s often-overlooked 2.5-million popular vote lead. Sanders supporters hypothesize that Clinton’s 469-to-31 lead in superdelegates will vanish if their candidate can win a majority of pledged delegates and claim the “will of the people.” But thanks to his reliance on low-turnout caucus states like Idaho and Washington, Sanders has won just 41 percent of votes, even though he’s won 45 percent of pledged delegates. Even in the very unlikely event that Sanders erases Clinton’s pledged delegate lead by June, Clinton would probably be able to persuade her superdelegates to stick with her by reminding them that she still won more actual votes than Sanders. Source It'll be a messy situation. A very, very messy situation. I think no matter who wins the Democratic party certainly loses a lot if Bernie wins delegates and loses the popular vote, although I think the popular vote will change too if he wins as big in California as he needs to in order for him to win by delegates.
I'm not quite sure, actually. Clinton's 8 point win in Cali in 2008 gave her 400,000 votes, Sanders needs +15, so that would be around 800,000 votes. Clinton's current lead is 2.5 million. Someone could try to convince me that the other large states do enough to mitigate, but i find it difficult to believe with figures showing that NY and Maryland won't be landslides, or worse.
It's nice to remind people that in 2008 Clinton won the popular vote but Obama got the nomination. But here Obama was 100 pledged delegates ahead and he had a majority of supers already early in May. For the final month, it was Clinton who was trying to convince supers to come back and help her win despite Obama's insurmountable pledged delegate lead.
|
On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point.
Well, people love cults! That's why, no matter who's getting nominated in the end, my vote will go to Cthulhu! 
|
Canada2764 Posts
On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point.
Well, he doesn't need 67- he needs around ~57-58. 67 is to -overcome superdelegates-, which are supposedly going to swap to Bernie if he has a delegate lead and if they don't then the democratic party alienates an entire portion of its base.
For Bernie to win the nomination, he has to win New York. Current polls put him around ~11% down in NY and any win would be enough for him to gather momentum. How likely is a win? Well, fivethirtyeight puts it at around 4%. 4% ain't good, but it's not 0. And that's statistics, not some fairytale hope random 4%. If he wins NY he gets ridiculous coverage because Clinton was so hyped to win it, and then he moves onto Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, etc. Is it likely that he gets a pledged delegate lead? Nope. Is it worth trying? For some people, yeah. And it's not even some 'better fucking win California 90-10' type thing. At least not yet, once it gets to that point you can call it ridiculous ;p
|
On April 06 2016 22:19 Soularion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:14 Kipsate wrote:
I don't think people expect Sanders to lay out a complete plan but they expect a better response to a question he build his platform on. Something, anything, even saying that you have experts or w/e to create policy. I imagine he already talked with experts about something. It comes across as insecure/unprepared.
I don't think its a big deal but the public might think it is. Mhm, exactly. I predict it'll hurt him but it won't decide anything, as the amount of voters he turns off probably won't be that much higher than the amount of voters who find out about him because of this. It will entrench a lot of Clinton supporters though, which is probably the bigger deal.
It will be a big deal come general, and it will be a big deal come debates. He needs an answer to it because it will be brought up again.
What you don't want from a president is him saying that he doesn't really know what the current laws do nor does he know what he is even allowed to do. Every other non-trump candidate would very quickly just say they will put together a team to figure out the finer details of that once in office--but only Bernie said that it should be the feds, no not the feds, the secretary, maybe dodd frank, I am not a dictator, look they're corrupt alright, I'll give them a stern talking, vote out establishment, uh....
Do you think Trump is above replaying that line over and over until Bernie looks like a threat to the white house? The job of any candidate is simply not to look stupid. Not necessarily smart--but not stupid.
|
Canada2764 Posts
On April 06 2016 23:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:19 Soularion wrote:On April 06 2016 22:14 Kipsate wrote:
I don't think people expect Sanders to lay out a complete plan but they expect a better response to a question he build his platform on. Something, anything, even saying that you have experts or w/e to create policy. I imagine he already talked with experts about something. It comes across as insecure/unprepared.
I don't think its a big deal but the public might think it is. Mhm, exactly. I predict it'll hurt him but it won't decide anything, as the amount of voters he turns off probably won't be that much higher than the amount of voters who find out about him because of this. It will entrench a lot of Clinton supporters though, which is probably the bigger deal. It will be a big deal come general, and it will be a big deal come debates. He needs an answer to it because it will be brought up again. What you don't want from a president is him saying that he doesn't really know what the current laws do nor does he know what he is even allowed to do. Every other non-trump candidate would very quickly just say they will put together a team to figure out the finer details of that once in office--but only Bernie said that it should be the feds, no not the feds, the secretary, maybe dodd frank, I am not a dictator, look they're corrupt alright, I'll give them a stern talking, vote out establishment, uh.... Do you think Trump is above replaying that line over and over until Bernie looks like a threat to the white house? The job of any candidate is simply not to look stupid. Not necessarily smart--but not stupid.
It's a big deal if he can't get a better answer to it next time. I'm sure he and his people are working out a better response for when that question is inevitably asked at the debate and in the media from now until NY, and at the very minimum he'll get less flustered. It's not like Trump and Cruz don't have stupid soundbytes of their own- especially Trump, with his entire 'nuclear triad' disaster and the recent abortion comments.
|
On April 06 2016 23:13 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe people see Bernie needing 67 percent and think it's possible. This is getting creepy. It's practically a cult at this point. How is believing in something that is rather unlikely creepy? whats creepy is how invested you all are in this cynical pseudo-realpolitik.
Creepy is having one candidate have the delegate lead, the superdelegate lead, and an even bigger popular vote lead--and then still say that voting for her is voting against the will of the people. Its a mindset that says that anyone who thinks differently than you is not the people. The people are speaking, the people are voting, and for the most part they just don't like Bernie as much as Hilary.
|
On April 06 2016 23:14 Kipsate wrote:
Is money even a large problem for Bernie? IIRC he has more money and spends more money then Clinton, is it possible to sustain it in the long term?
He spends more, but does not have more than Hilary. He has more people donating but has much less money overall, and he is burning what little money he has much more heavily than her. (much like his plan for the presidency)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
