The whole "75% voted against Bernie" thing.

[DanTex]

OK, let's do this. Here's an experiment. Go buy two pies. The first one, cut in half. The second one, cut into six pieces. After you do that, compare the sizes of the pieces of the first pie with the sizes of the pieces of the second pie. Let me know which is bigger.

That pretty much covers the myth that Bernie somehow lost half of his support from 2016.

Bernie's gotten the most votes in both contests so far. He's now ahead in all the polls. The fraction that support Bernie is smaller than in 2016 because this time there are six or seven leading contenders, instead of two (see the pie experiment). As candidates drop out, the remaining pie pieces will get larger.

Bernie doesn't just lead the polls as top choice, he also leads the polls when second-choices are included. By a larger margin. And in head-to-head contests (what would happen if the field of six or seven got down to two like in 2016), he is polling ahead of every single other candidate.

There's this false idea going around that the Democratic electorate is divided into "pro-Bernie" and "anti-Bernie" camps, and so everyone who doesn't have Bernie as their first choice is "anti-Bernie". That's fiction.

[Codeine]

1. This is correct.

I am curious to see where the votes shake out as the field contracts. The polling in regard to second choices seems sketchy to me, but we both have a dog in the hunt, so clearly mine is not an unbiased view.

[jmg257]

2. Yep - pretty sure his percentages will go up when a couple challengers drop out.

Shouldn't be long now.

[CalFione]

3. If you are really a Bernie supporter, it doesn't matter if he has 1 opponent or 100 opponents

Let's do a different thought experiment.

You were a Bernie supporter in 2016 and you still are. The fact that he had 1 opponent in 2016 and has 5 in 2020 doesn't matter to you. If he had 500, it wouldn't matter to you.


But let's look at another voter. They voted for Bernie in 2016, but have selected another candidate in 2020. This means they weren't all-in for Bernie - they were simply a "anybody but Hillary" voter in 2016.


Bernie claims that his support is growing and that it is a "movement". If it was a real movement, half of his supporters from 2016 would NOT have moved on to a different candidate - they would have stuck with him.

This puts the lie to the claim of a "movement". If Bernie was your guy, the number of opponents he is running against is immaterial.

The simple fact of the matter is that half of Bernie's support from 2016 was *SOFT* support. The fact that they are backing someone else this time means that he was just a placeholder and not a "transformative" candidate like you claim.

The "enthusiasm for Bernie" that supporters like you claim is there is phony. If it were real, then the people who supported him four years ago would STILL be with him, and the number would be growing. Despite campaigning basically non-stop for four years, half of his voters from 2016 have said "nah, not this time. I like someone else better now."

He is leading simply because his hard-core support is a very solid 25%, and the rest of the party hasn't settled on which moderate yet. But the rest of the field didn't have a base in 2016 to build on. They've gone from 0 to their current numbers.

Bernie had a 4 year head start, and has hemorrhaged half of that support away.

But he's not adding any voters to his coalition he built up 4 years ago - he's losing them. They may end up voting for him if he is the last man standing, but it is tepid support.

A "movement" candidate doesn't lose support just because there are more opponents than before.

Another way to look at it is this:

2016 Hillary support was 56%. Without Hillary in the race, this support has scattered to several candidates.
2016 Bernie support was 44%. 25% of that has stuck with Bernie, 19% of it has scattered to several candidates.

If that 44% was a transformative movement that was growing, that 19% wouldn't have scattered.

[CalFione]

4. Another way to look at it is this:

There are millions of voters saying "I was a Bernie supporter in 2016, but I'm supporting {candidate} now".

There are hardly any voters saying "I was a Hillary supporter in 2016, but I'm supporting Bernie now".


He's adding *NO* new voters to his coalition.

[squirecam]

5. Exactly

100%

[DanTex]

7. Well, "non-real" Bernie supporters get to vote too.

[CalFione]

9. It means that claims of a "movement that is growing" is false

A movement doesn't lose supporters over four years, it grows them.

A movement doesn't care how many opponents there are, it doesn't lose any of its supporters to any of those opponents.



Bernie has a "lane". That lane represents about 40% of the Democratic electorate and it is being split but Bernie and Liz. But it has a hard ceiling of 40%.

There's another, more populous lane, of 60% of Democrats. It is currently being split by 4 candidates. If they ever get that lane down to 1 or 2, then they will win.

It means that if we get to the convention and Bernie doesn't have 1,991... he will have no path to get there. The moderate lane with coalesce their delegates behind one candidate and that candidate will have more than 1,991.


A candidate that represents the interests of 40% of a party isn't going to be the nominee.

[DanTex]

11. No, it doesn't. It just means that part his support are people you don't consider "real".

[CalFione]

12. How is the claim that "ours is a movement that is growing" backed up by having fewer REAL voters?

[Yavin4]

6. You lost me at "Go buy two pies"

Can't get past the pies part.

[nobuddy]

8. The Vincent Adultman approach to losing a primary

Sure, he's in first but look, he's losing to these three candidates in a trench coat.

[Garrett78]

10. I've actually seen posts here that claim Sanders is more popular at DU than outside of DU.

In other words, there are a lot of really warped perspectives inside the DU bubble. Another example is people thinking it would be a good idea for Bloomberg to buy the nomination. Or people saying MSNBC is anti-Biden and pro-Sanders.

Those perspectives are so out of touch with reality that they're laughable. A lot of folks are clinging to outdated notions.

[LanternWaste]

13. So you argue against an unsupported allegation by using unsupported allegations.

Fighting the inaccurate with inaccuracy. Gee, man... that's pretty damned clever.

Of course, I'm not going to call that "fiction" as I strive for accuracy above bias, so we're going with "yet another fallacious sentiment lacking objective data to support it from you..."

[msongs]

14. no, its math no matter what names are involved. when you only get 25% and other gets 75% u lose nt