Bernie Math - illogical thinking

[CajunBlazer]

Several Sanders supporters on GD-P are calling the claim that Hillary leads Sanders by 3 million votes "a lie".

How could they possibly dispute that figure you might ask. Its simple - they apply Bernie math and unsound assumptions. In this case they say Sanders only has less votes than Hillary because he won more caucuses than Hillary and caucuses naturally produce less votes. So they claim that had the caucus states staged primaries instead Sanders would have won them by more votes than Hillary so he wouldn't be so far behind.

I got tired of reading this foolishness and destroyed their BS BS with this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2009066

[upaloopa]

1. When has their side used logic in their arguments?

They invent ideas then call them facts and say we refuse to discuss the facts they just invented. And if you call them out on it they say you have the responsibility to prove them wrong.

[CajunBlazer]

3. They claim to us logic - but their "logic" is usually illogical

[griffi94]

2. It's not illogical

They've simply become unhinged.
It's over and even the biggest
Bernie zealot knows it's over.

The debacle in NV and his tepid response has
cost him any credibility he had. Credibility he was already losing BTW.

Now he's just an agry old guy raging against the dying of the light.

The only people still listening to him now are the hardcore zealots.

[liberal N proud]

4. When you take out the numbers you don't like and...

Flip the states you didn’t win and steal some of the others at the state conventions and add those mythical Super Delegates that you condemn, then just maybe, just maybe you come up with the nomination.

That is how BernieMath works.

It must be some new math the are teaching these younger people.

[savalez]

5. Remember that bernie math video?

"If anything caucuses count double!"

[LiberalFighter]

6. Since they want to use their own math we should do the same.

Clinton has won states with a census population higher than Sanders.

Clinton: 196,525,831 -- 71.25%
Sanders: 79,297,548 -- 28.75%

The voters have spoken!!!

[CajunBlazer]

10. Excellent point

Thanks for putting that together.

[Princess Turandot]

7. In sports discussions, esp. in baseball, that's called the 'fallacy of the predetermined outcome'...

The runner on first base takes too big of a lead off the base and gets picked off. The player who's up batting hits the next pitch out of park. There are people who will insist that had the runner not gotten picked off, the team would've scored two runs because the home run would still have occurred on that next pitch.

There's no assurance that he would have still won victories had his caucus-winning states been primaries instead.
Whatever the format of any state's election, the truth of the matter is that given the generally low turnout, there were millions more qualifying voters who could have shown up and voted for Sanders, if he was as universally popular as he fantasizes that he is. They didn't. For example, in NYS, he whinged endlessly about how the closed primary was so unfair to him. But ~3 million of ~5 million registered Democrats did not vote at all in the primary. Perhaps he should have tried wooing them.

[CajunBlazer]

11. ...

[riversedge]

8. Who knows anymore. they just constantly make up crap and post it!

[BootinUp]

9. Good post. Think Nebraska too. On the other hand

I am no longer interested in much arguing wiith them. Its like arguing against Big Brother in 1984. Nothing but more brainwashing pablum received back.

[Cha]

12. Of course they are..

[eastwestdem]

13. For a bunch of college students, you'd think they would be able to figure this out.

Perhaps they are just nit picking for nit picking's sake?