2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders is the underdog, but here's Nate Silver's site on small chance versus no chance
In an NCAA basketball tournament game on Sunday night, Texas A&M was trailing Northern Iowa by 12 points with only 35 seconds left to play, and came back to win it. Silver got his start analyzing sports rather than politics. On his site, Neil Paine, who's a senior sportswriter for FiveThirtyEight, wrote:
(from "Texas A&M Pulled Off A 1-in-3,000 Comeback")
He also mentions some similarly unlikely sports comebacks (or collapses) that have occurred.
It's a good thing those Texas A&M players were too busy with the tournament to be reading Clinton supporters' posts on DU, or they would have just gone to the locker room instead of finishing the game.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in all seriousness, though, the question is not only whether it's physically possible, but whether how many resources should be poured into the cause, what tactics are considered in bounds vs scorched earth, etc.
Basketball players just had to play out 35 seconds of basketball, so there's never an issue of having a reason for them to leave.
Also, Donald Trump isn't their next opponent, and there's no "whoever wins this game MUST win the next game" idea.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)If someone has a serious disease and is likely to die, s/he may pour inordinate resources into treatments, because the alternative is so terrible. For those who think American democracy is on its last legs before transforming into sheer oligarchy, the question of dedicating resources may defy a simple analysis of arithmetic probabilities.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as being absurd hyperbole.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)If one believes that Sanders' more liberal approach is the better path for this country, if not now, when do you think such an opportunity will come along again, to get even this close? Especially if he loses?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)his plans for realizing those goals make sense.
Many people have decided that he does not have sensible proposals for achieving those noble goals.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Neither Hillary nor Bernie can do anything too ambitious with the current Congress. Let's at least start aiming for better, rather than conceding before we start. At least Bernie says that his supporters need to stay motivated, to give him a better congress, in this and the next election or three. Hillary seems content to work with whatever congress she gets, which I suppose is easier for her, since she's not trying to do as much to begin with.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the executive branch includes a lot of levers that have to be used very cleverly and subtly. Solutions to complex problems are themselves often complex and difficult to explain.
I highly doubt Clinton is content with having a Republican Congress.
The problem for Sanders is his entire theory of change rests on his ability to create a mass mobilization of opinion at the ballot box. He's failed that threshold test.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)A big part of his mobilization would need to come from outside the Dem base. With all the states that have closed primaries, or where people with a choice were motivated to vote in Republican primaries instead, his ability to mobilize the general population remains untested. And again, it doesn't have to be done all at once, a President Sanders theoretically has up to 4 congresses to get through.
It is unlikely he will win the nomination, for sure. But if he does, then we will see the first test of his ability to mobilize the general electorate.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)If Bernie's supporters can deliver a Dem congress then everyone in hell gets ice water.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)We had one as recently as 2010. A lot can happen in 6 years.
What if we have a president who is better at motivating his party's base to support him, rather than a president who was better at getting his opponent's base to oppose him? It will always be a fight between those two factions. It is possible that the Republicans' current self-immolation may benefit the next Dem president in this fight.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)It is incredulous to think we will get a Dem congress because of Bernie supporters.
All of us will contribute to the outcome.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)But Sanders supporters outside the Democratic base could make the difference between what he could do and what a more traditional Democrat can do. It's about adding to what's already there, not starting from zero.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)in large numbers.
This idea that we need to give them something to vote for is weak since there never is what we want on the ballot.
We need to all stay engaged and work for the long term. That means voting in every election.
It means not sitting out elections and blaming who knows what for not voting.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)But the fact that something is difficult is not an excuse not to try!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Kaleva
(36,294 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The problem is the nomination process isn't really like a single sporting event. Based on the first half or so of the Democratic primary season, we can point to some patterns. Clinton does best in larger, more diverse states. Sanders does best in smaller, less diverse states. Along those same lines, Clinton does best in "blue" areas (such as Atlanta and St. Louis) and Sanders does best in "red" areas (such as rural Georgia and rural Missouri). Clinton does better among registered Democrats, and most of the remaining contests are closed.
Unless those patterns get flipped, Clinton will be the nominee. When your opponent is favored in the delegate-rich areas and you already have a deficit of 300+ delegates, you need something truly extraordinary to happen in order to win.
So, is there any reason to believe any of those patterns will get flipped?
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)What would make it impossible is if his supporters give up. Which, I suppose, is why so many Hillary supporters seem intent on getting his supporters to give up.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)That was my point.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)But the tiny chance of Sanders winning if he stays in, as opposed to zero chance if he drops out, has to be weighed against the fact that by staying in he's increasing the chance that the next president of the USA will have a lemming on his head.
The "stay in" scale isn't empty, it's just that the "don't stay in" scale is heavier.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)That's small, but significant enough to not walk away from.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The most common approach of Clinton supporters seems to be: Any expression of disagreement with Clinton on issues is an "attack" on her (or maybe even "Hillary-bashing" or "Hillary-hating" , and any such disagreement increases the chance of a Republican victory. I think that's ridiculous. The Republican nominee is not going to denounce Clinton as a corporatist war hawk or criticize her vote for the Iraq War Resolution or call for curbing the influence of Wall Street.
The main effect of the Sanders campaign is to make Clinton look centrist by comparison. If she's the nominee, she'll be positioned to the right of Sanders but to the left of the Republican. To many voters, that by itself will make her look reasonable.
Other effects: The Democrats will continue to get some coverage, instead of ceding it all to the Republicans. Progressives who want to send the message that there's a considerable space to the left of Clinton can do so now, by voting Sanders, making it more likely that they'll grudgingly support Clinton in November if she's the nominee, instead of stomping off in disgust to vote for Jill Stein or to write in Bernie or whatever.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)And an awful lot of events happen every day.