2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA Sanders Comeback
A Sanders Comeback Would Be Unprecedented
Share on Facebook
APR 28, 2016 AT 6:39 PM
A Sanders Comeback Would Be Unprecedented
By Milo Beckman
Filed under 2016 Election
Bernie Sanders during a rally in Springfield, Oregon, on Thursday. RYAN KANG / AP
Dear democratic socialists, political revolutionaries, Bern-feelers at large: We need to have a talk.
Let me begin by saying that I bear no ill will towards Mr. Sanders. Nothing that follows should be misconstrued as an attack on his policies, his track record, his electability in November or his character. Im not a corporate media crony, or a plant from a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. Im just a guy who believes in the predictive power of cold, hard data.
And the unsexy truth is that, barring some catastrophic news event, Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. In fact, most past candidates in Sanderss position dropped out long before this point in the race, and those who stayed in made little pretense of winning. (The Sanders campaign, which announced Wednesday it was laying off a ton of staff, may be recognizing this.)
Historically speaking, Democratic primary races do not have many twists and turns. Rather, the eventual winner tends to take an early lead on or before Super Tuesday and stay there. Runner-ups can kick for a while, but they tend to concede the race by February or early March.
As it stands, Sanders is firmly in runner-up territory. He is losing 9 million to 12 million among those who have already voted, and polls show him lagging by an average of 8.8 percentage points in the states yet to vote1. Sanders has gained substantially in national polls but is still the less popular candidate (outside of the Bernietopia that is social media2).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-sanders-comeback-would-be-unprecedented/
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)It had so much math in it that shows Bernie can not win and discusses the historical perspective as well. Too long to post the entire thing.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Kind of like what they do in the Hillary Group.
elleng
(130,895 posts)Nothing that follows should be misconstrued as an attack on his policies, his track record, his electability in November or his character. Im not a corporate media crony, or a plant from a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. Im just a guy who believes in the predictive power of cold, hard data.
And the unsexy truth is that, barring some catastrophic news event, Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.'
THANKS
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Hope you read it.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)You lose ALL credibility when you do this. ALL
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)After that, what happens, happens. I'll admit, I'm just about checked out of the whole process. No Bernie on the ticket = I'm gone.
Cue the whining from people who think they're entitled to my vote to save them from Trump.
Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #4)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I only support progressive candidates. Doesn't look like there's going to be one in this race though.
Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #12)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Because it is also said that failure to support Trump equals support for Hillary. So I guess that pathetic little bullshit argument ends up a wash. Too bad, so sad, try harder next time.
Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #17)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)But I'm done with you. I've seen what you've had to say in other threads and you don't seem to be a person worth hearing or speaking to, so on the list you go.
Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #22)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Civics 101.
Sam
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Are doing the whining?
Perhaps a little projection happening here?
Response to Demsrule86 (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Now he is evil too.
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #8)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)too left to let a GOP win without fighting like hell
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #15)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)I have been shocked at some of the anti-Hillary posts. She is a liberal people.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)....believe those things" Yep.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Pure herringbone!
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)BootinUp
(47,143 posts)Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)The Howard Dean part...I was so disappointed when he did not get the nomination. I did vote for Kerry of course. Oops corrected post...put Gore down!
BootinUp
(47,143 posts)I always vote D.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Sometimes here in Ohio for certain offices, it is non-partisan so you have to do research.
rog
(649 posts)It's good to know who the 'pundits' are.
Profile in the Harvard Crimson:
http://www.thecrimson.com/topic/fifteen-most-interesting/milo-beckman/
I just find something and am like, Well thats cool. Im going to spend my entire life on that for a little while, Beckman says.
.rog.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)He wrote an article about how Scalia's death would be felt until 2060 that was very very good.
A cutie? That is a matter of taste, I suppose. I'm not really into men, but even if I were I suspect I'd find him distasteful. As far as his so-called brilliance is concerned, he strikes me as a dilettante ... by his own definition in the quote above, i.e., " ... a person who cultivates an area of interest without real commitment or knowledge." Seems like a person who may be at Harvard on his daddy's buck, but who is not taking advantage of many things that Harvard may offer. I'm sure this privileged young man will do very well as his life progresses ... but not really a person I would turn to for in depth analysis. I prefer folks who have been around the block at least once. YMMV.
Have a nice evening.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)The Bernie piece he wrote is meticulous...not the work of a dilettante. He is brilliant and if you looked at the Data, you might notice. You just don't like the message.
rog
(649 posts)Once again, I would refer you to the opening sentence of his profile in the Harvard Crimson, cited above.
Thank you for understanding my inclination not to take him seriously. I did read the article about Bernie.
.rog.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)In a variety of things. He is smart...great analysis. If you looked at it...fascinating look back as well.
oasis
(49,381 posts)Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)I used to like Bernie. In fact, I voted for him in Ohio...he would never win Ohio by the way...so I knew I could pull the party a bit left. The way he has acted, I am sorry I did that. I heard him bring up the Clinton foundation as if it was a bad thing...it is not.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)I don't know. This country is not far far left...wish it were so sometimes, but it is not. And I don't want the banks broken up...should the financial capital of the world be in China? Let's have meaningful regulation...not destruction.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)<My comment was what peolpe were saying for many months in the primary...and they were dead wrong.
For 35 years we have been allowing a small number of massive corporations and banks swallow up all competition, use the accumulated power to buy the government and abuse the population.
This is not a good thing. Most average people realize that, to varying degrees of sophistication. And they don;t like it.
Problem is our empty politics fuels apathy and cynicism, and does not offer any way to channel that.
Unril more politicians start talking about it and take a stand against it, and start offering a way to address it, it'll only get worse.
Urchin
(248 posts)China can have the big banks.
I hear China executes business leaders who screw thing up.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Why nothingl
Urchin
(248 posts)Or do only jobs working for a bank shuffling paper while gambling other people's money, count for anything?
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)We have regained jobs. Unemployment is less than what it was in 07 as well as early 08. Trashing the banks would be a really stupid idea. We need to regulate them for sure. But being the country that houses the financial center of the world is a very good thing. Bernie is just plain wrong on this issue...you don't destroy, you regulate. FDR did not destroy or nationalize the banks (something Sander advocated at one time), He regulated them and we have years of prosperity.
Urchin
(248 posts)I mean reinstate Glass-Steagall (which Clinton I repealed, thereby bringing on the Financial Crisis a few years later; so let's make Clinton II president, to see what she can wreck).
And if the banks ever create another financial crisis, let them declare bankruptcy and wind-down like Lehman is doing.
(Reinstating Glass-Steagall may result in the big banks breaking up, because big banks won't be able to gamble with FDIC insured bank accounts anymore)
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Of course, your candidate is not a Democrat ...what a Democratic socialist? Well in any case ...he is an independent. And all this stuff about Glass-Steagall. Clinton was not a Senator when that was passed now was she? However, Bernie is not that pure in terms of banking...he was in Congress and voted for a major cause of the 2008 crash:deregulation of CDS (credit default swaps). In 2000, Sanders voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a bill that blocked federal agencies from regulating credit default swaps which played a huge roll in the 2008 financial crisis. Don't you think? All those mortgages cut up and sold in pieces as CDS? Tsk tsk...what was Bernie thinking to support such a thing. It was a Gramm...bill you know.
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #30)
Urchin This message was self-deleted by its author.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)they cannot relax, and they are tired of worrying. Well, I'm tired of worrying too, but I'm sticking with Bernie till the end. Because whether or not he's the ultimate nominee, the longer he stays in and the more delegates he wins, the stronger the message of the people is in shaping the future of this country.
And I am fucking tired of worrying about where this country is headed. And of course I see no course change with Hillary at the helm, unless pressured by Bernie's revolution. So go Bernie. Make them worry. I'm with you all the way.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)California has a weird system where everyone is on the same ballot...could be two GOP type running in the general...32 people running for one Sen. seat...so we want Dem turnout. After that, he gets out or his is finished and loses his influence over the party. And we have all seen how much third parts have. He won't want to name post offices.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Says you?
Pffffft!
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)He is not the well-liked in the Senate...and if he screws up the convention by putting on a show...he will be naming post offices.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)You are toast.
Urchin
(248 posts)even if the odds of success were only a fraction of one-percent?
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Would not save the country.
Urchin
(248 posts)the same big banks that wrecked our financial system doesn't save the country either.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Until it is repealed...there will be money in politics. As for this obsession with the banks...no one is breaking up any banks...they need regulation for sure...but do you guys really want to move the banking capital of the world from New York to China...that is almost the same as destroying autos. It would cause a huge loss of jobs, everyone's 401 K would evaporate and I doubt a Democrat would be elected for years.
Urchin
(248 posts)But the big banks should remember that China executes business leaders who screw up the economy.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)It is meaningless Bernie could not find one example of quid pro quo...not one. Today he is accusing her of money laundering...he is rolling in the mud...sad end to a guy who had big dreams and some good ideas.
Electing Trump would destroy the country...possibly with nuclear weapons as he has said he will use them repeatedly.Trump is unqualified and dangerous...you want to save the country, help Hillary our candidate defeat him.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)2 years ago I was betting that HRC would run, but
not Bernie.
11 months ago I thought it would be Bush on the other
side, and I never had even the slightest thought
about Trump.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)However, by all measures, he has lost. And now is causing trouble for us...those of us who care about not electing Trump or any Republican...as news gets out about the things he said yesterday...shocking...he is going to lose more support. No one wants a person who would negate millions of votes. Americans are a country that plays fair.
Urchin
(248 posts)for his repeated warnings for over a decade, about the growing menace of Nazi Germany.
Churchill didn't stop making his point when just about everyone else was telling him what he was saying was bad for business with Germany--Germany might stop buying our stuff, like airplane engines-- so Churchill needed to shut up.
In the end, his country saw he had been right all along and made him prime minister.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)They would have been invaded by the Germans. The much maligned Chamberlain save the British by delaying their entry into the war. By the way, what you have posted is a rightwing meme.
Urchin
(248 posts)For at least the first few years of Churchill's warnings, Germany was still a long way from the war machine it had later. Hitler didn't even want to go to war with England when it finally happened.
I read history and don't know from "memes," right-wing or otherwise.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Most of the books praising Churchill are Republican in nature. You have to read extensively to pick out the truth...peace at any cost saved England. They were ill prepared for war...Churchill was a hothead. He was a good war leader...and of course we saved their bacon honestly.
Urchin
(248 posts)Michael Parenti - The Real Causes of World War II, Part 1 of 2 (I'm sure you can find your way to part 2):
Urchin
(248 posts)That this country elected an actor as president, because public life is an act, you know.
And now as a backlash to the corruption of government by .01%, a large number of people are in favor of making a member of the .01% the president.
That's like appointing the fox to guard the henhouse.
This country has gone crazy. Collapse can't be far away.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Sure, you do...
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)It does not matter if he takes it to the convention...bitter and angry. The supers will vote for Hillary and with her numbers it becomes official. She has won already. Bernie is not ready to face the truth or he needs money...don't know.
lame54
(35,287 posts)he wants the people who worked so hard for him to actually have an opportunity TO FUCKING VOTE
those states get screwed every primary
and, oh yeah, Bernies always been about the money - give it a rest
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Nothing like the transparency coming through your missives...
Please note: Supers may not be what you THINK they are. Were they, then a good idea would be that a candidate who thinks they have it in the bag goes on a shopping spree every time there's a presidential election, using political currency before another opponent is even announced. Using that logic, the who who thinks their nomination is in the bag can count on the "supers" as back up singers at the fantasy Democratic Convention.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Sorry, couldn't resist the low-hanging fruit.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)He has indeed been here for years and years...hardly an outsider. In my defense that is the name of the article.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)I think he can manage one more.