Garrett78
Garrett78's JournalWhat would happen if Sanders ran as a 3rd Party candidate?
Some have suggested that Sanders might win, meaning he'd reach 270 electoral college votes. I think there's virtually no chance that would happen. Keep in mind where Sanders performs best (smaller, less diverse states). In my opinion, each of the following scenarios are all far more likely:
1) Trump reaching 270 with the help of Sanders splitting the vote with Clinton in traditionally 'blue' states (like those in New England and the Pacific NW)
2) Nobody reaching 270, leaving it up to the House of Representative to select the next POTUS
3) Clinton reaching 270 anyway, as enough people in swing states and traditionally 'blue' states recognize the risk of voting for Sanders
Perot did amazingly well in '92, by 3rd Party standards. Bill Clinton still won 370 electoral college votes.
The #1 key to the Democratic candidate winning in November is...
...having POC and women solidly behind the candidate. Like it or not, the candidate who fits that description is Clinton. As unpopular as Trump is, I would worry about Democratic turnout if Sanders were to be nominated. That's why I had started the following thread in spite of not being a big fan of Clinton: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511829582.
That's the base. Those are the folks who must buy in, so to speak. Those who are most often mistreated in our society can ill afford to take a chance on a relative unknown.
And for all the talk about "independents," they're a mixed bag. Some who self-identify as 'independents' are vehemently opposed to others who self-identify that way. About half of Tea Party members, for instance, choose to call themselves "independent." Obama lost the overall independent vote in 2012 and even lost the independent vote in nearly every swing state, yet won in an electoral college landslide. Why? I refer you back to the start of this thread.
People can point to hypothetical GE match-up polls all they want, but they are historically misleading. At this juncture, they're basically meaningless, especially when you're talking about a candidate who is - again - relatively unknown (most folks don't follow politics super closely and Sanders is not someone who has been in the spotlight for all that long). If hypothetical GE match-up polls were even remotely reliable, Dukakis would have become POTUS. A GE campaign completely changes the dynamic.
Nate Silver isn't the only one who writes for 538.
Whenever someone posts an article from FiveThirtyEight, numerous people immediately attack Nate Silver. Guess what, folks, most of the articles posted were not written by Nate Silver. Perhaps if people would actually read the articles they would realize this. Just a thought.
What's amazing is how attached people get to their conspiracy theories.
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts their theories. Google "Sanders wins Indiana" and you get more than 9 *million* hits.
Go to the sites for every major newspaper and television news channel and you'll find a headline about Sanders winning Indiana. Go to HuffPo. Go to MoveOn. Go to Daily Kos. Go to Yahoo. Go to Politico. Every single one has an article about Sanders's win in Indiana.
Sure, Trump Mania has gotten more media coverage throughout this campaign (and Cruz dropping out is legitimately big news) than the Democratic race has gotten, but it's crazy to suggest there aren't headlines all over the web about Sanders winning Indiana.
The Indiana result represents a continuation of the pattern.
Indiana, like a majority of the remaining states, matches the profile of a Sanders state. Neither glee nor panic seem like appropriate responses to something that merely follows suit.
That said, I suppose there is something to the idea that more delegates for Sanders means more influence on the Democratic Party platform. But platforms and governance are 2 different things, and systemic change will require a sustained, mass movement long after this nomination process is complete. It's safe to say a Clinton Administration will govern very much like the Obama Administration has. If you aren't satisfied with that, influencing the party platform (words on a page) won't get the results you seek.
A Clinton Admin will likely operate more or less the same as the Obama Admin has.
I was prompted to start this thread by reading yet another post that was very pro-Obama and anti-Clinton.
Assuming Clinton becomes POTUS, differences in governance could (and likely will) result from unforeseen events and cultural shifts, and there are always going to be personality (as well as personnel) differences. But for the most part, I fully expect a Clinton Administration to govern the same as the Obama Administration has. *Note: To some, that's a good thing and to others not so much. I'm not making a value judgement one way or the other.
It's important to keep in mind that the POTUS doesn't create systems. The POTUS operates within systems. Systems aren't static, of course, but mass movements are required to alter them. For example, the institution of marriage has experienced shifts, not because of Supreme Court decisions but because of mass movements.
The US is extremely individualistic and oriented toward the Cult of Personality, which results in people vastly overestimating the power and influence of individual actors.
Who are "independents" really? Unbiased, critical thinkers?
First, my own thoughts on so-called "independents":
Some refer to themselves as independent or non-affiliated because they have what they consider to be "middle-of-the-road" positions on various issues. Or because they are 'liberal' on some issues and 'conservative' on others. To be honest, I don't think such folks typically make much sense. They are often folks who fail to see how social and economic issues are linked. Of course, you also have those who fail to see how they are distinct. The truth is they are both linked and distinct--picture a Venn Diagram.
Others refer to themselves as "independent" simply because they think it gives the impression that they are unbiased, critical thinkers, even though they are basically party loyalists (or because they're Libertarians and just don't call themselves that).
And others refer to themselves that way because they're just extremist Republicans--they're disappointed that the Republican Party isn't bringing back slavery and swapping the US Constitution out for the Bible. For instance, I've read that nearly half of Tea Party members refer to themselves as "independent."
Finally, an article on the topic: "The growing myth of the 'independent' voter"
If Clinton wins a clear majority of pledged delegates, does anyone think Sanders will be nominated?
Let's say Clinton leads 2175 to 1876 (a reasonable projection) heading into the convention. Is there anyone here who honestly thinks Sanders will be nominated?
Anyone? Anyone at all?
If so, please provide an example of when such a thing has happened and explain how that occurrence relates to the Clinton-Sanders race.
If not, can we please put an end to all of the irrelevant superdelegate threads?
Bonus question: Does anyone here honestly believe Sanders will end up with 2026 or more pledged delegates? Anyone? Anyone at all?
Persons of Color Must Be at the Forefront of Any Sustainable, Comprehensive Political Revolution.
I suspect Sanders supporters are more likely than Clinton supporters to deny that racial justice and economic justice are 2 distinct entities (which they clearly are, as evidenced by wealthy persons of color being mistreated in ways poor white folks don't experience). They're also probably more likely to either deny or underestimate white (male) privilege.
The Sanders campaign is and always has been a message campaign, and the message isn't wrong, per se. In fact, he's mostly right when it comes to matters of political corruption and the plutocratic nature of US government (it's absurd, for instance, to suggest that campaign "contributions" and payments for speeches don't have any influence on public policy). Some of his supporters, though, have gone off into grand conspiracy land. And some of his supporters have suggested that a Trump presidency would be preferable to a Clinton presidency, which not only strikes me as insane but also insulting to persons of color.
But the truth in Bernie's message aside, there will be no comprehensive "political revolution" without persons of color at the forefront. And, though it may seem counterintuitive, millennials (who comprise a large block of Sanders' supporters) are among the most ignorant when it comes to matters of race and the history of race relations in the US. 2 articles on that topic, which I encourage everyone to read:
1) "Millennials Are More Racist Than They Think"
2) "Is the Millennial Generation's Racial Tolerance Overstated?"
Is broad systemic change sorely needed? Absolutely. Might the Sanders campaign spur a movement toward systemic change? It's possible. But the message and the messengers require some pretty substantial modification.
Technically Speaking vs. Practically Speaking
An awful lot of wasted thread space is being devoted to arguing a point with which nobody in their right mind would disagree, which is that Clinton has not yet reached 2383 delegates or 2026 pledged delegates. Or that Clinton likely won't reach 2383 prior to the convention--as if that matters.
Technically speaking, of course the race isn't over and of course the convention has not yet taken place. Duh.
Practically speaking, however, Clinton pretty much had the nomination sewn up March 15th. I would argue (and did argue last year) that Sanders never stood a chance, but that's beside the point. Mathematical and demographic realities made the impending result crystal clear by mid-March.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
