2015-2016 Democratic Primary Season - Bernie Math

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Drake

That makes sense, I guess.

I've only got five or six Bernie fans on my Facebook feed (where I define "fans" as people who actually post things about politics), so it could be that I've just got an abnormal feed. I've pretty much hidden all of the overly political folks I've friended over the years.

I don't have that many either. Things have been pretty quiet other than a handful of anti-Trump posts.

Of course, it's possible (probable) that a number of people on my friends list from HS* are actually pro-Trump, and are just being shamed into keeping quiet.

* Mostly the ones who didn't attend college and/or are still living in the area.

[JPhillips]

I've got everybody, Trump fans, mostly from high school, anti-Trump conservatives, Berniebros, Hillary fans.

[bob]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but in 2008 the election of Obama over McCain seemed to be a foregone conclusion by election day (that's at least what I remember). However, many of my left leaning friends had a strong concern that while polls may indicate that, when push came to shove, many people just wouldn't vote for Obama (because he was black or for other reasons) and McCain would win.

Maybe its a little early for this question since the GOP primary is still ongoing, but do people on the left have a similar fear that while out loud many independents are saying they won't vote for Trump for fear of being called idiot, racist, whatever, but when election day comes they will?

[ISiddiqui]

Regardless of that fear in 2008, Obama won quite substantially - even more than predicted.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Drake

That makes sense, I guess.

I've only got five or six Bernie fans on my Facebook feed (where I define "fans" as people who actually post things about politics), so it could be that I've just got an abnormal feed. I've pretty much hidden all of the overly political folks I've friended over the years.

It's mostly all over the comment sections of news stories on Facebook from outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post. There are scores of posts talking about how the publications are biased for Hillary or how they've been bought off, etc., etc. for simply reporting the news (such as Sanders has a long uphill climb, etc).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by bob

Forgive me if I am wrong, but in 2008 the election of Obama over McCain seemed to be a foregone conclusion by election day (that's at least what I remember). However, many of my left leaning friends had a strong concern that while polls may indicate that, when push came to shove, many people just wouldn't vote for Obama (because he was black or for other reasons) and McCain would win.

That fear specifically stemmed (at least for me and I assume most Democratic die-hards who had voted at least in 2000 and 2004) from the 2004 election where Kerry appeared to be leading in early exit polls, and then lost handily. Not saying that people stayed home because of the exit polls, but saying it was basically a pretty big kick in the balls. In addition, a lot of that campaign felt like Kerry had a really good chance because of the issues Bush had embroiled the country in. Of course, only part of the electorate (at that time) felt that way.

[flere-imsaho]

dola,

What I'm saying is that if you're a Democrat, and you're my age or older (or maybe a big younger), the 2004 experience (and even 2000 to an extent) means you're counting no chickens until they hatch on election day.

Even if Clinton enters November with a 20 point lead I'm not going to feel comfortable. Which, at that point, is probably irrational, but I'm going to own it.

[cuervo72]

20 point lead I'm not going to feel comfortable

That's basically how I feel as a sports fan.

[Drake]

If you're running against Northern Iowa, there's always a chance.

[molson]

The Dem caucus was a really huge event in Boise. Huge lines down several blocks. People waited hours to get in. Idaho was going to be big for Sanders anyway, but I think this format helped propelled him to the 78% he got. People are willing and able to commit hours to this were more likely to be younger, without kids, college students, or unemployed. And I think his appearance here the day before really did get young people riled up and to the polls. It was just all Sanders all the time on my facebook wall.

Edit: There was a lot of talk about the fairness of this format though - it really was an ordeal to be able to take part. I voted in the Republican primary a few weeks ago (though I'm still voting for Clinton in the general election), and it took 1 minute.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: There was a lot of talk about the fairness of this format though - it really was an ordeal to be able to take part. I voted in the Republican primary a few weeks ago (though I'm still voting for Clinton in the general election), and it took 1 minute.

My Dad, who is retired, went to the caucus in his small town in Maine. He's pretty into this stuff, and an invested Bernie supporter, and even he said it was a waste of time and we'd be better off with a primary.

[mauchow]

Pretty big sweeping wins for Bernie today. How will this affect things going forward, I wonder? Will it create momentum to pick up steam in states he's lagging behind at this point? PA? NY?

The next state is Wisconsin and 538 says Hillary is leading after taking a lead in most recent polling. I find this so hard to believe being from there. If my facebook was any indication, there's probably 4 to 1 positive discussion to Bernie more than Hilary.

There were 132 delegates today to be had, Bernie might snag nearly 100 of them today. IF he were to keep beat Hillary in Wisconsin in the same fashion, he'd be looking at cutting Hillary's 320 delegate lead in half post-Wisconsin. WI is an important state for Bernie to win big if he wants a chance as I don't see him making a dent in NY/Md/Pa so he needs to win big to offset the losses in those states.

[Solecismic]

+45 in Washington, +63 in Alaska. That's kind of crazy. I don't think it changes the math much, but it gives Sanders some momentum that makes it impossible to ask him to tone it down or leave the race.

We're getting a lot of polls lately that show the Democrats are favored in November and that Sanders does better than Clinton in these hypothetical matchups. Still very early for matchups.

Sanders' chances? There are some large states like Pennsylvania and New York that poll heavily against him. And the matter of trying and switch hundreds of superdelegates who will have a hard time going against a Democrat to favor someone who didn't want to join the party until he wanted to run for president.

So still around 1-2%. But that's not quite zero.

[mauchow]

I was just reading someone's talk about Washington and how there are multiple caucuses, so the results aren't even finalized yet for the remaining 70 or so delegates.

[Thomkal]

very surprised by Sanders big wins last night.

[Dutch]

I'm surprised by Alaska, I guess, at most. But Washington and Hawaii seem like perfect Sanders territories with regard to DNC voters.

[Solecismic]

Throwing out some approximate numbers, because the superdelegate issue is becoming a little more controversial. Out of about 714 superdelegates, Hillary has a soft pledged lead of 471-29.

Based on that math, she needs to win 33.0% of the remaining delegates for the nomination.

What if superdelegates were bound? I looked at it in two different ways.

1) Superdelegates are WTA to the person who won the state. In that case, Hillary has a 260-124 edge, and needs 41.3% of the remaining delegates.

2) Superdelegates are assigned proportionally with the vote. In that case, Hillary has a 199-185 edge, and needs 44.2% of the remaining delegates.

So far, Clinton has 20 wins and Sanders has 15. Hillary's unweighted average of the percentage of the vote is 49.2%.

Would changing the superdelegate process mean anything? Only if yesterday meant a sea-change from the polls. This is a very regional race, and west is where Sanders is strongest. Hillary leads slightly in the limited California polling, though, and the other major prizes (New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey) should go to her fairly heavily.

Needing only 33% of the remaining delegates, this race is long over. But even if she needed 41% or 44%, it probably wouldn't end up that close because of the geography even though we're done with the southeast, where she had all ten of her >60% wins.

Sanders, too, has ten >60% wins, seven west of the Mississippi and the three northern New England states. Only 643 of the 1,754 remaining pledged delegates are west of the Mississippi - 475 in California.

This is why Sanders will not leave the mid-atlantic for the next month. To have any chance, he has to assume the polling is wrong in California and that he'll crush Hillary there. He has to win NY/NJ/PA, then make the case to flip superdelegates. Seems like that's something that has maybe a 1-2% chance of happening.

[flere-imsaho]

Counterpoint:

Sanders has outperformed his targets in 11 states. Just three of those states held primaries (Illinois, Oklahoma and Vermont), and one of those three (Vermont) is Sanders’s home state. The other eight were caucuses. Six of Sanders’s best states by this measure were in the West (all the caucuses this week and Colorado). In fact, Iowa and Nevada are the only caucuses so far in which Clinton beat our delegate targets by more than one delegate, which may have something to do with all the organizing effort the Clinton campaign put into those states.

So why is Sanders doing better in caucuses than primaries? The most obvious answer is that caucuses reward candidates with diehard supporters. There are often speeches, and sometimes multiple rounds of voting at caucuses. Typically, you have to stick around for a while to vote. That takes devotion, and if you’ve ever met a Sanders fan, you’ll know that many would climb over hot coals to vote for him.

Sanders’s strength in caucuses may also be, in part, coincidental. Every state that has held or will hold a Democratic caucus this year has a black population at or below 10 percent of the state’s total population, and black voters have been among Clinton’s strongest demographic groups. Without those black voters, Clinton just can’t match the enthusiasm of Sanders’s backers. (In Southern states, where Clinton romped, her voters were far more enthusiastic than Sanders’s supporters were.)

I've been impressed and a little surprised by Sanders' staying power. I'm glad he's in the race so the issues he's talking about, and the potential solutions he raises, are getting discussed, when they often don't get this kind of airtime (the solutions, not the issues).

I also think there's probably something interesting about how both Clinton and Sanders are winning states for the Democratic party to consider. Are different demographics pursuing different things? Are these two candidates just attracting complete different people. I don't know, but I hope someone does an analysis at some point.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I also think there's probably something interesting about how both Clinton and Sanders are winning states for the Democratic party to consider. Are different demographics pursuing different things? Are these two candidates just attracting complete different people. I don't know, but I hope someone does an analysis at some point.

I would argue the former. You know how there has been an uneasy alliance on the Republican side between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives? It appears the Democrats have a fizzure themselves - between interest group politics (race, sex, etc) and class based politics.

[flere-imsaho]

I could buy that.

[albionmoonlight]

Susan Sarandon claiming that she just does not know if she has it in her to vote for Hillary if Bernie does not win crystallizes why so many people have trouble getting on board with the Dems.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Susan Sarandon claiming that she just does not know if she has it in her to vote for Hillary if Bernie does not win crystallizes why so many people have trouble getting on board with the Dems.

I guess I'd ask someone if it would be more difficult to vote for Hillary or to watch Trump/Cruz SCOTUS nominees for the next 30 years.

[Kodos]

Yep, it's a no brainer. If you can't get option A, take option B, rather than option C, D, or F.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I guess I'd ask someone if it would be more difficult to vote for Hillary or to watch Trump/Cruz SCOTUS nominees for the next 30 years.

You know as much as Sanders' supports like to go on and on about "Citizen's United", you'd think they'd understand if a bunch of Nader supporters in 2000 decided to vote for Gore, it could potentially have been 5-4 the other way. Bush nominated Roberts and Alito in his second term, but if Gore was re-elected or a more moderate Republican (say, McCain) won in 2004, the nominated Justices likely would have been more centrist.

[NobodyHere]

Random silly thought:

Let's say Bernie Sanders gets into office and passes tuition free college. How does this affect college football scholarships and all the rules that go with them?

[digamma]

It doesn't?

Athletic scholarships are now full cost of attendance, which is much more than tuition.

I suppose you could argue that the rich get richer because public schools could, in theory, get federal subsidies for the tuition portion of the athletic scholarship.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You know as much as Sanders' supports like to go on and on about "Citizen's United", you'd think they'd understand if a bunch of Nader supporters in 2000 decided to vote for Gore, it could potentially have been 5-4 the other way. Bush nominated Roberts and Alito in his second term, but if Gore was re-elected or a more moderate Republican (say, McCain) won in 2004, the nominated Justices likely would have been more centrist.

That argument kind of goes out the window when you've got Obama nominating Merrick Garland. For all the rhetoric about liberal versus conservative in nominations, the real argument may be about how pro-corporation potential justices are. In that respect, the nominees from both parties have been pretty similar for the last twenty years or so.

[ISiddiqui]

You don't think Garland would have voted with the "liberal 4" on Citizen's United?! That's silly.

[ISiddiqui]

Judge Merrick Garland: A Moderate Liberal on Election Law Issues, With Questions About Boldness | Election Law Blog

Far more important to understanding Judge Garland’s views in this area are Wagner v. FEC (2015), a case upholding the ban on government contractors making campaign contributions to federal candidates, and NAM v. Taylor (2009), a case upholding disclosure provisions relative to lobbyists. Wagner was a majority en banc decision, meaning liberals and conservatives signed on to the opinion and so the result was not all that controversial. But the way that Judge Garland wrote the decision indicates that he accepts Congress’s role in crafting reasonable campaign finance regulations aimed at protecting government interests. Judge Garland could have written the opinion in a reluctant way, noting that Supreme Court cases like Citizens United and McCutcheon may have undermined the constitutionality of total bans on contributions by any class of contributors. But Judge Garland did not write such a decision (as we recently saw another DC panel do in a disclosure case). He wrote an opinion which was thoughtful, meticulous, and a full-throated endorsement of the ban on contractor contributions. This reads to me as an opinion of a judge who believes in reasonable regulation. The same is to be said for his NAM decision, which carefully applies precedent, and is not reluctant to uphold disclosure requirements in the face of unsubstantiated claims of harassment. the judge also signed a 2008 decision, Shays v. FEC, which required the Federal Election Commission to craft tougher regulations to implement the campaign finance law.

I mean Garland may not be a super-liberal (mostly because he's just a sacrificial lamb by Obama to show how silly the Senate GOP is being), but being against Citizens United is a Democratic position, regardless of whether you are moderate or liberal on that side of the aisle.

[larrymcg421]

Every justice appointed by a Democrat that heard the Citizens United case dissented.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Random silly thought:

Let's say Bernie Sanders gets into office and passes tuition free college. How does this affect college football scholarships and all the rules that go with them?

And also, will veterans be able to cash in their GI Bill for cash since they would be entitled to a free college education anyway?

[wustin]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Random silly thought:

Let's say Bernie Sanders gets into office and passes tuition free college. How does this affect college football scholarships and all the rules that go with them?

Room and board, books, and other stupid fees still exist. Universities could just jack up the prices of living on campus.

[molson]

I looked on his website but I'm not sure exactly how the "free tuition" thing would work. Would all state colleges just become federal national colleges? Or would every American get a grant that would cover the cost of any public college anywhere? Presumably, there would also have to be legislation preventing the state colleges from charging above a certain amount that could be covered by grants (if that's even constitutional to direct the activities of a state entity like that.) Would school still "cost" 6 figures with the federal government just picking up the tab for everyone, or would it be more like a takeover where the feds run everything and set costs and slash everyone's budgets as needed?

[Dutch]

Maybe Sanders is promising people teach for free as well...and new free campuses.

Free meaning taxes, of course, but for most, essentially free.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not sure it's much worth considering since it's not happening no matter what. Either Bernie is a shrewd politician who's floating this free tuition thing merely to point out how expensive college has become or he's a ridiculously naive idealist who thinks he can wave a magic wand and make things happen. All the Bernie supporters tell me he's the latter and that he would never do the former.

[Solecismic]

I understand the frustration with having large debts and a degree that doesn't provide you with many job skills. But are there many college professors who advocate this approach? There's enough trouble today with all the scholarships available and students who simply aren't interested in attending class or working toward an education. This would definitely turn most colleges into extended high schools.

But, apparently you will be able to major in e-gaming in the future, so all's good. Especially if I can get FOF into the curriculum.

[ISiddiqui]

Well when basically every job mandates a college degree, whether it actually matters for the work or not (do you really need a college degree to be, say, a manager of a CVS?), maybe making college an extended high school would be ok.

[molson]

Free or cheap college education needs to happen at the state level. When the federal government took the issue on with loans and grants, the cost of education exploded, and pro-profit scam schools popped up everywhere to get some of that free money.

A lot of states have managed to send a lot of their best students to their public schools for free or cheap, though, interestingly, Vermont doesn't seem to be one of them. (I saw that only 20% of Vermont's most recent incoming class was from the state - so obviously the school and the state are not even big fans of the in-state discount.)

[ISiddiqui]

I think the Sanders' plan actually does want to use the states - maybe the feds reimbursing them, I'm not entirely sure.

Clinton's plan involves making college cheaper, but not necessarily free. Direct aid to states, lower rates for loans but requiring people who get loans to work 10 hours a week to pay some of it back (likely for the state university, I'd imagine), loans being repaid based on income, easier refinancing, stuff like that.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And also, will veterans be able to cash in their GI Bill for cash since they would be entitled to a free college education anyway?

That's another thought that has occurred to me. I remember in basic training we were asked what motivated us to join the military. The majority of people said it was because of the GI Bill. And it is a great benefit, you taxpayers probably covered $50k for my college education. I wonder what carrot the military will have to come up with to sustain an all volunteer military.

[molson]

I imagine that if Sanders was so powerful and successful that he somehow got the free tuition thing through Congress (or if he converts the country to a dictatorship), we'd also have a much, much smaller military.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure it's much worth considering since it's not happening no matter what. Either Bernie is a shrewd politician who's floating this free tuition thing merely to point out how expensive college has become or he's a ridiculously naive idealist who thinks he can wave a magic wand and make things happen. All the Bernie supporters tell me he's the latter and that he would never do the former.

Well Europe does it and stuff

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think the Sanders' plan actually does want to use the states - maybe the feds reimbursing them, I'm not entirely sure.

Clinton's plan involves making college cheaper, but not necessarily free. Direct aid to states, lower rates for loans but requiring people who get loans to work 10 hours a week to pay some of it back (likely for the state university, I'd imagine), loans being repaid based on income, easier refinancing, stuff like that.

States would essentially be putting up 1/3 the price tag with the federal government putting up the rest under Sander's plan.

Of course we know that every red state would agree to go along with this plan from the (democratic) socialist president cuz they're both red or something.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well Europe does it and stuff

Oh, don't get me wrong. My argument isn't against the actual policy. It's just not a politically viable solution. Bernie couldn't get it passed even if he had majorities in both houses, which he won't have (and certainly isn't helping happen with his refusal to give money for downballot candidates).

[Julio Riddols]

Why not instead of cheaper or free college, we make the high school diploma worth more than toilet paper? Maybe offer more specialized training at that level? Would that be feasible? Reasonable? It was good enough for the generations that came before mine.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Why not instead of cheaper or free college, we make the high school diploma worth more than toilet paper? Maybe offer more specialized training at that level? Would that be feasible? Reasonable? It was good enough for the generations that came before mine.

Because their competition in China and India was still living in the sticks at the time.

[PilotMan]

The whole free college thing is one of my biggest hangups with Sanders. It's simply not a feasible option, and it encourages the idea that a true college degree is the best solution when it really needs to be done by someone with drive and dedication.

Delta Airlines did a study and found that the pilots that make get their degrees in 4 years performed better and had fewer training issues than pilots who took longer. It's not simply a matter of getting the degree, it speaks to the nature of the individual on how they go about it, what obstacles they had to overcome and what they achieved.

College life was pretty sweet 20 years ago. I just toured Western Kentucky in the fall with my 8th grade son, who wants to get into a program there. I was struck by how much more it's like living at a combination social club, sports club, and dinner club. It's a life you'd almost never get the chance to live again outside of it. It's amazing, in fact, but it felt like so much of the focus was just on the life and not really on the degree you'd be getting.

Free tuition just accelerates this. It brings in a slew of people who have no real interest in next level success, or what the hell to even do with it. College still needs to be one of those things you look hard in the mirror to decide if it's your best option. There's no reason it needs to be turned into extended high school.

[Logan]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Seems like expanding loan forgiveness programs would be a much better start.

[Dutch]

Or mandatory work for the government after graduation. Also, minimum grade requirements for "free"....get a D or an F...pay up before you continue on....similar to military tuition assistance.

[Dutch]

Basically, the military in reverse. Quite expensive though....if everybody enjoys the benefits that the military does, it would quite literally cripple those who pay taxes (unless of course we have no intention of paying and just add it to our national debt).