Why (or why not) to vote for Bernie Sanders

[quote=“wynn_james, post:209, topic:59394”]
Hillary could strangle a puppy on live TV, and she’d still get a majority of Democrats to vote for her.
[/quote]That’s untrue. If that was the case, she would have won against Obama.

As time and knowledge of Sanders and his solid record goes on, he is gaining. As time and increased knowledge of Clinton’s flip-flopping and pandering goes on, she is waning. People don’t trust Hillary Clinton for many clear, easy to understand reasons.

Also, please keep in mind that mainstream polls (such as Gallup) are often skewed towards Hillary Clinton and do NOT reflect reality. This is also giving Hillary Clinton and some of her more ardent supporters too much hubris and a false sense of security.

For example this latest, flawed Gallup Poll:

Sanders Surges, Clinton Sags in U.S. Favorability

Sanders is surging higher than that poll implies due to a terribly flawed methodology that doesn’t work properly in 2015.

Their sampling is 50% cellphone and 50% landline respondents. The problem is the electorate isn’t broken up in that manner.

50% of the data is skewed to eliminate many of Sanders most ardent supporters who rent within cities and elsewhere, are lower income and/or are young, etc.

Most adults of voting age who rent apartments/homes do not have a landline. Most adults of voting age who are lower income do not have a landline. There are entire regions of the country where a huge percentage of the population are cellphone only. Most Millennials, by far, do not have a landline, period. This situation is only increasing over time.

Sanders’ surge in these polls this early in race (before we’ve even had any debates) is already impressive, however, it’s even larger than these flawed polls are telling us.


Before I spend time watching a video… what’s your point?

1 Like

It explains how the electorial college is broken, and how a person with a stupidly low amount of public support can become president because of how the votes work. Not 49% more like… 29%.

1 Like

Latest national poll shows Bernie Sanders beating Scott Walker, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush


Also FTA:

…Polling out last week shows [Sanders is] the only candidate from either side who has a net favorability rating.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is increasingly becoming a liability. The “he can’t win” meme against Sanders is looking increasingly ridiculous.

1 Like

And, if the status quo thinks that’s bad for them… They’re in for a goddam hell ride after July 29th.

Meanwhile, the staff at Boing Boing seems really, really focused on Don Tramp and other gimmicks.

UPDATE: Good morning. As of 10:22 AM Colorado time we are now up to 100,196 people. Yes, that’s over one hundred thousand people.


Wallace made a difference, Perot and Nader didn’t much (no matter how much people like to blame him for 2000).


Why is the first thing I notice about that map the rather unusually placed event in… Calgary?

Did the Canadians give Alberta to the USA when I wasn’t looking? I could totally understand if they did, because, well, Stephen Harper.

They lost a lot of credibility with me after the climate change denial fiasco. Plus, they’ve been consistently wrong on Sanders over time. I think they embrace conventions too much and aren’t as open to broader dynamics as they should be.

That’s not to say I discount everything they say. They obviously have a good track record (depending upon the issue), but I take a lot of their opinions with a huge grain of salt.

All that said, I think it’s already conventional wisdom that Doneld Tramp (His name is parroted quite enough already on Boing Boing) could hurt Republicans with a third party run.

[quote=“Purplecat, post:218, topic:59394”]
Why is the first thing I notice about that map the rather unusually placed event in… Calgary?
[/quote]Random. It’s been expanded worldwide by popular request for Americans who are currently located overseas. You can click on it and talk to the organizer(s) themselves, if you’d like. It’s very transparent since this is a grassroots movement as apposed to Hillary’s opaque, gimmicky astroturf campaign.

1 Like

Because he’s an amusing and sad clown who thinks he’s a contender to be president?

[quote=“albill, post:220, topic:59394”]
Because he’s an amusing and sad clown who thinks he’s a contender to be president?
[/quote]My point is that Boing Boing focuses so much on him, but hardly gives someone like Bernie Sanders the time of day. There’s no balance there. It’s sad to see Boing Boing act like other mainstream media outlets instead of something more evolved. I expected better.


I suggest you bring it up with the editors that actually participate in these forums.

I have contacted all staff, publisher and “higher ups” at Boing Boing. @doctorow, to his credit, seemed to respond with this. However, that’s sadly been an anomaly and never repeated. The norm is every other candidate gets critical attention while Sanders gets the indifferent shrug from Boing Boing (overall). I like Boing Boing and I’ve supported them in ways they’ll never know, but I think this is a very disappointing situation.


So I’m going to this Sanders event tomorrow… We’ll see how this goes. I’m interested to see what others have to say and to hear Sander’s comments via the broadcast portion of the evening.


I suspect they give attention largely to the candidates they are mocking for doing and saying stupid shit.

Or perhaps it is…a conspiracy!

I suspect that they just don’t care.

Speaking of candidates who get an indifferent shrug, should Bernie Sanders lose the Democrats’ nomination and Jill Stein win (again) the Greens’, you will then campaign just as vocally for her as you are now for him, yes?

Here is her plan, which is much the same as it was in 2012, and the platform of the Green Party in general. They compare favorably, to say the least, with Sanders’s stance on the issues that led you to endorse him.

1 Like

Why bother? She can’t win.

The difference with Sanders is that if he gets on the ballot, he may actually be able to pull a win. A non-GOP, non-Democrat presidential candidate, while admirable, is unelectable at this point.


First, because there’s more to politics, and more to life, than who wins this election. Calling attention to Green principles increases the likelihood that they’ll be acted upon. I’ve seen simply reading the Green Party platform snap others out of their cynicism, turning them into activists. Hearing Greens speak has worked wonders too.

Campaigning for a Green presidential candidate, then, might put more Greens in office at other levels of government or widen the venues at which they can speak. (The Commission on Presidential Debates, founded by Democrats and Republicans, excludes them, and mainstream media ignores them, which may have to do with Green positions on media reform and corporate power in general.)

Ultimately what matters, though, is improving the world, whether or not those changes are brought by Greens or come from government at all. If, through a greater exposure to Green principles and the pressure that it precipitates, some other party introduces their policies, or some company acts with greater social, economic, or environmental responsibility, a victory has been won.

Second, because I for one won’t surrender what little agency I have in this political system by submitting to fear of a conservative win or otherwise letting the votes of others, rather than my conscience, decide my own. I hope someday you’ll join us.

Until then, I’ll point out that responses such as this

acknowledge a problem and in the same breath compound it.


Perhaps we’re right.

1 Like