Poll for Bernie supporters who can vote

[Guest]

I didn't call anybody a liar. I was just asking for proof.

Also I still don't see it. If she doesn't call him unqualified, then she isn't calling him unqualified and I have to believe that.

[veearrell]

I didn't call anybody a liar. I was just asking for proof.

Also I still don't see it. If she doesn't call him unqualified, then she isn't calling him unqualified and I have to believe that.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[shockkkk]

This thread gave me cancer.

[Sally]

As much as I want Trump not to win, I also believe in fairness. And if Bernie doesn't get california and the people don't vote for bernie, then he shouldn't get the nomination. Hell, superdelegates are the most undemocratic thing that I've ever heard of. Let's be real, it's an oligarchy, not democracy when those people can swing an election when the people voted otherwise.

So what would you say to people who allege that Bernie would be leading if the race had been played fairly?

There's no way to prove that he would be. Those people are being illogical whiners.

[Sally]

Personally, I think you're right about Clinton having more supporters, although you have to admit there's a staggering amount of accounts of election fraud. If Clinton becomes president, she will further drag the US through the dirt, and it will further hurt the reputation of the Democrats. At that point you guys will either need a third, more progressive party, or you're pretty much guaranteed to land with a Republican president next.

Clinton has almost one third more delegate votes -- not supporters, actual VOTES, and that's before counting the superdelegates -- than Sanders. There's always election fraud but there's no more reason to attribute that to one person or party than the other.

If Bernie were to be nominated and won the election, Congress would not pass any of the programs he's been talking about, and that would bury the Democrats much deeper than Clinton could.

[Larien]

Please keep in mind that this is a Census thread - please refrain from making this debate unnecessarily personal and please keep heated debates in other forums such as PPS and Hot Box.

Larien, Census mod

[drjohnhwatson]

My whole thing with this is that Independents can't vote in many of the states' primaries without switching parties for the moment to do so. That makes sense; this is for the Democratic and Republican primaries. The thing is, though, is that 45% of voters are Independent, and they favour Bernie Sanders the most. Then Donald Trump. And...that's about it. Hillary Clinton gets such a small portion of the Independent vote that it almost doesn't register. A candidate, whether they're Democratic or Republican, has to get a goodly portion of the Independent vote in order to win. Which Clinton doesn't have. Noooooot by a longshot.

Also in terms of superdelegates, Clinton had more votes than Obama, but the superdelegates went to him. They recognised that he drew in three very important voting blocks:

-First time voters

-Youth voters

-Independent voters

Bernie Sanders does exceptionally well in all three categories. Far better than Hillary Clinton does.

Barring that, Clinton has been in free-fall mode since basically the beginning. Sanders has been given a fraction of the attention or screentime that Clinton has been given, and when he is given media coverage, it's negative and usually false. This has always been her race to lose, and there have been videos showing that Clinton's polling generally reflects how her elections turn out. They showed her bid for Senate and something else, where it showed she had x amount of percentage of the vote, and she spent a year each time and millions (we're talking 30+ million) trying to turn the tide and I think for one election she was bang on the percentage polled a year in advance and the other they were like 1 or 2% points off. Her campaigning and blowing money for a year didn't change the poll numbers much at all--if at all.

So when people in the media are like "oh, these polls mean nothing!!"--they kind of do mean something! She keeps slipping in electability and Donald Trump is just eating up the lead. Not to mention that no one has even been elected with as high a number of unfavourability as Clinton has. She and Donald Trump are both at "historic, record-breaking" unfavourable ratings.

That's not even getting into all the law issues she's facing. It's...just...a mess...

And it's hard to say who would win in an election when they're both neck-in-neck because people hate them so goddamned much. That's kind of dangerous for an election, and the superdelegates were literally put into place to stop a candidate they thought couldn't win the presidential election. If you have "historic, record breaking" levels of people hating your potential candidate, wouldn't that kind of make you go "hm, better think about the thing that we're set here to do in the first place"?

(Superdelegates piss me right the hell off because Bernie won here (Indiana) and yet because the superedelegates pledged themselves to Hillary regardless of the outcome, she technically gets more delegates on the whole from the state if they stick that way. Not to mention there are places that Bernie won by SO MUCH that she doesn't get any delegates...except all the superdelegates. You're gonna ignore 80% of a state's vote? Okey-dokey.)

[Sally]

Hillary Clinton gets such a small portion of the Independent vote that it almost doesn't register.

We won't really know that until the general election, in which everyone can vote for whoever they want.

[Tarfeather]

Clearly, Hillary expects to clinch voters from the Republican base. ._.

[Joe the Stoic]

Clearly, Hillary expects to clinch voters from the Republican base. ._.

Which is annoying, because her mindset is that she can be as terrible as she wants, since Trump will always be worse and drive GOP voters to her. It is a campaign strategy of aiming low like never before seen.

[Sally]

And just how is Clinton being "as terrible as she wants?" What does that even mean? How is she being terrible?

[veearrell]

And just how is Clinton being "as terrible as she wants?" What does that even mean? How is she being terrible?

Cheating in multiple primaries for one thing. Consistently failing to disavow the people who say "if you don't like Clinton you're a sexist" for another.

[Tarfeather]

And just how is Clinton being "as terrible as she wants?" What does that even mean? How is she being terrible?

For instance, asking for money from the same donors who supported Jeb Bush, and claiming that "she represents their interests better than Trump".

[Joe the Stoic]

I have said before that if Hillary gets the nomination, I will support her, but after this report by the State Department, Obama's State Department, I do not know if I can. This might be the straw that broke the camel's back. The only response I see is that Powell and Rice did it too, not that what she did wasn't illegal. This is a new low for Hillary.

[Ultima]

And just how is Clinton being "as terrible as she wants?" What does that even mean? How is she being terrible?

For instance, asking for money from the same donors who supported Jeb Bush, and claiming that "she represents their interests better than Trump".

While I despise the entire Bush family and would not condone any politician accepting support from the Bush constituency, I do have to say that Hillary is very cunning for having conned rich republicans into giving her money. As I always say, milk the wealthy for all that they are worth.

[Kappamaki]

Putting aside anything about Clinton and Sanders specifically...

We need to get rid of superdelegates. They are undemocratic and worse than useless.

We have several possibilities of how superdelegates affect an election:

1) They don't. In which case, they're useless.

2) Their votes win an election for someone who otherwise doesn't win. In which case, the vote of the people was stolen.

3) They unduly influence 'momentum' to affect an election (as you could argue happened with this election). In which case, they are a bad influence unless you believe in oligarchy.

I'll support Clinton as the nominee because she won the most non-superdelegate votes. I would have preferred Sanders, but that didn't happen, and I am willing to accept that and move on. But I seriously want some election reform. (Don't get me started on the electoral college.)

[veearrell]

Putting aside anything about Clinton and Sanders specifically...

We need to get rid of superdelegates. They are undemocratic and worse than useless.

We have several possibilities of how superdelegates affect an election:

1) They don't. In which case, they're useless.

2) Their votes win an election for someone who otherwise doesn't win. In which case, the vote of the people was stolen.

3) They unduly influence 'momentum' to affect an election (as you could argue happened with this election). In which case, they are a bad influence unless you believe in oligarchy.

I'll support Clinton as the nominee because she won the most non-superdelegate votes. I would have preferred Sanders, but that didn't happen, and I am willing to accept that and move on. But I seriously want some election reform. (Don't get me started on the electoral college.)

No she didn't. At least half her "victories", if not more, were stolen and several states are investigating massive fraud that took place in their primaries that just so happened to work out in Clinton's favor. She didn't win. She didn't come anywhere close to winning. Anyone saying she did is either ignorant of the facts or a liar.

[Kappamaki]

I'll support Clinton as the nominee because she won the most non-superdelegate votes. I would have preferred Sanders, but that didn't happen, and I am willing to accept that and move on. But I seriously want some election reform. (Don't get me started on the electoral college.)

No she didn't. At least half her "victories", if not more, were stolen and several states are investigating massive fraud that took place in their primaries that just so happened to work out in Clinton's favor. She didn't win. She didn't come anywhere close to winning. Anyone saying she did is either ignorant of the facts or a liar.

Well then, I'm ignorant of the facts. I'm aware of some minor... chicanery by the Clinton camp, but nothing as widescale as the whole campaign conspiring to steal over half her won delegates. If it turns out that these allegations are true and investigations turn up enough evidence to show that Clinton's campaign stole the election, I'd join the movement insisting she step down and give her position to Sanders. Even if the November elections are over and she is president. (If Trump's president, it'd be a moot point and I'd be more involved in other protests.)

[veearrell]

I'll support Clinton as the nominee because she won the most non-superdelegate votes. I would have preferred Sanders, but that didn't happen, and I am willing to accept that and move on. But I seriously want some election reform. (Don't get me started on the electoral college.)

No she didn't. At least half her "victories", if not more, were stolen and several states are investigating massive fraud that took place in their primaries that just so happened to work out in Clinton's favor. She didn't win. She didn't come anywhere close to winning. Anyone saying she did is either ignorant of the facts or a liar.

Well then, I'm ignorant of the facts. I'm aware of some minor... chicanery by the Clinton camp, but nothing as widescale as the whole campaign conspiring to steal over half her won delegates. If it turns out that these allegations are true and investigations turn up enough evidence to show that Clinton's campaign stole the election, I'd join the movement insisting she step down and give her position to Sanders. Even if the November elections are over and she is president. (If Trump's president, it'd be a moot point and I'd be more involved in other protests.)

As just one example of "chicanery" as you put it, people watching the Illinois primary on TV (I think this was in Illinois) reported that for a good portion of the night, Sanders was ahead by a large margin, but then the vote count (which the networks were showing in real time) mysteriously started flipping votes from Sanders to Clinton and they saw his number of votes go DOWN while hers went UP by the exact same number. And that's not even one of the states that opened an official investigation. Just how much "chicanery" did her camp pull off that isn't being investigated?

[Tarfeather]

No she didn't. At least half her "victories", if not more, were stolen and several states are investigating massive fraud that took place in their primaries that just so happened to work out in Clinton's favor. She didn't win. She didn't come anywhere close to winning. Anyone saying she did is either ignorant of the facts or a liar.

I don't think there's any evidence of that. We can maybe find indicators that there was election fraud. We can't prove that without that fraud, Bernie would have gotten the vote. I mean, let's face it, if a significant majority of democrats really were in favour of Bernie, he would've won either way. It was pretty close, if that. And close to 50% legitimately thinking Hillary is better, is kind of a catastrophe, and the real issue. If in the US, close to 50% of people aren't educated enough to make the right political choices, then democracy in this country will not fix things.

[Larkaloke]

I do think that they should choose Sanders over Clinton anyhow, providing that Sanders does have an advantage against Trump. Most evidence seems to indicate that's the case, so I think that they should. However, if they don't, I certainly won't be writing Sanders in or voting Green Party... as much as I would like to, if our system actually gave either of those things a snowball's chance in hell of working. I'm not willing to risk Trump winning by voting for a third party candidate or trying a write-in. Neither of those things has ever historically (since the point where the whole Democrat/Republican thing became truly entrenched) done more than split the vote on one side and hand victory to the other. Usually it doesn't even do that. The math makes it pretty clear that it wouldn't be any different this time, and I'm not keen enough on making a statement to overlook what I consider a very real threat.

[iff]

This poll is being locked and moved to the read only Census archive for it's respective year. As part of ongoing Census organization, and in an attempt to keep the demographics of the polls current with the active user base at the time, the polls will last for one year from now on. However, members are allowed and even encouraged to re-start new polls similar to the archived ones if they like them.

 

iff, Census Forum Moderator