chipwhich Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Again, winning a state isn't what you seem to think. These are not winner-take-all contests. A win by 5% is not the same as a win by 20%. If the delegate count is within 100 or so by March 2nd, as it should be, then the race will continue. Anyway I'm a bit surprised to see you of all people so eager to crown Hillary. Maybe you've realized that a Hillary nomination gives the GOP a better shot in the general? I understand winning a state isn't winner take all. My point is Obama was holding his own actually winning states. It looks like Bernie will be down 12 states to 3. I am talking more from a momentum and perception standpoint. Check that perception temperature after super tuesday. If Hillary takes 10 states, watch the media calling Bernie done. His momentum will be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I understand winning a state isn't winner take all. My point is Obama was holding his own actually winning states. It looks like Bernie will be down 12 states to 3. I am talking more from a momentum and perception standpoint. Check that perception temperature after super tuesday. If Hillary takes 10 states, watch the media calling Bernie done. His momentum will be gone. The media has been calling Bernie done since he announced, doesn't make it true. Right now this is a tie game, and it will still be a close game on March 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Right now, except for the super delegates, they're tied, 51-51. And if he can keep getting 49% while "losing", that could continue for some time. (Now, I'm not sure he can keep it up, though). Thank you. This is what I'm saying. Hopefully he can keep it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I understand winning a state isn't winner take all. My point is Obama was holding his own actually winning states. It looks like Bernie will be down 12 states to 3. And as of now Hillary is leading 2 states to 1. And they're tied. 51-51. I am talking more from a momentum and perception standpoint. Now there, I agree. In this "race", perception is king. Even if the two candidates may be mathematically tied, the word "winner" certainly does make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 And as of now Hillary is leading 2 states to 1. And my prediction is that will be 12-3 after Super Tuesday. Perception will be killing Sanders at that point. Obama had a whole different feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Obviously Bernie's coalition isn't the same as Obama's, but the key is keeping the race close in the next couple weeks, which Bernie probably will. For example, Hillary beat Obama soundly in Massachusetts and lost to him soundly in South Carolina. Those results will probably be flipped this go around between Hillary and Bernie. My point is not that Bernie will follow the exact same path to victory as Obama, it is that Bernie still has a path to victory. Why do you think he's going to win big in MA? There is a single recent poll that puts him up 7%. That's not big compared to the states like SC where Bernie is trailing >20%. And my point isn't so much the coalition. It is about a built in large advantage that he didn't have to do much to appeal to in terms of campaign promises or money that mattered through out large areas of the country. That limited and controlled the number of 20% losses he was going to take without spending a dime or any time in those states, and even in a state like MA Obama only lost by 16%. It is hard to take 20% losses and win a primary, especially essentially a one-on-one primary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 And then there is this.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/20/dolores-huerta-says-she-was-shouted-down-with-english-only-chants-from-a-sanders-crowd/?postshare=5671456017653136&tid=ss_tw This story is a lie (no surprise coming from Hillary's camp).What actually happened is this: The translator was pro-Hillary and the Sanders supporters demanded a neutral translator (they did chant, but the word they chanted was "neutral"). The only person who uttered the words "English only" was the moderator, not anybody from the Sanders camp. You can see video of the entire incident here (starting at the 55:00 mark): https://www.ustream.tv/embed/recorded/83452078?html5ui It's also worth noting that the Clinton foundation gave Huerta's foundation $100,000 (see page 33): http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/300048438_201012_990PF.pdf And here's a related story about the incident Huerta made up: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/english-only-dolores-huerta-america-ferrera-bernie-013208241.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Delegates/Super Delegates are beyond stupid to me. But it's the system the Dems use (the Super part). What is so hard about just adding up total votes for a candidate in a primary season and having the overall winning...ugh...nevermind. It's only 2016. Counting Technology is a few hundred years away. My understanding is that that was the system prior to 1968. But then in that year no one got a majority, so thinks broke down majorly. The SDs were implemented afterward as a way to ensure that the party could basically tie break at the convention. The problem now is that when 300+ SDs declare one way before voting even starts, it causes problems. Optics matter. Being down a few delegates from a close loss looks good. Being down 300 delegates after a close loss looks bad. I'd like to see them re-work the system. Maybe something like, Superdelegates may not declare until their state votes, and then Superdelegates declarations may never be used to put a candidate ahead in state delegates of the person who won the highest vote %. So like in NH, some Superdelegates would be forced to declare for Bernie to ensure his superdelegate count remained higher than Clinton's, since he won the popular vote. The one exception to this would be at the convention, if after a number of votes are taken, no nominee is picked, then Superdelegates are released and may vote as they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Why do you think he's going to win big in MA? There is a single recent poll that puts him up 7%. The numbers have gone from Hillary +34 in October, to Hillary +27 in November, to Bernie +7 last week. That is a big trend in the right direction, a full 41 point swing in a few months. Also this is Bernie's backyard. I'm thinking Vermont and Massachusetts will look a lot like New Hampshire. That's not big compared to the states like SC where Bernie is trailing >20%. No denying Hillary has some big leads down south. It's a problem for Bernie. Those numbers could still shift in his favor as he gets his message out there (as they did in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada). Hopefully black voters will recognize that Bernie is better than Hillary. While he was getting arrested for participating in civil rights marches she was volunteering for a senator that voted against the civil rights act. Bernie's platform includes plans for: Public college, public healthcare, ending the drug war, addressing the prison industrial complex, demilitarizing the police, addressing income inequality, $15/hr minimum wage, etc. Time will tell. People have been telling me Bernie has no chance ever since he announced, but right now it's a tie game, and the same people still insist Bernie has no chance. Hopefully you'll forgive me for not abandoning hope now that we've come this far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 The numbers have gone from Hillary +34 in October, to Hillary +27 in November, to Bernie +7 last week. That is a big trend in the right direction, a full 41 point swing in a few months. Also this is Bernie's backyard. I'm thinking Vermont and Massachusetts will look a lot like New Hampshire. No denying Hillary has some big leads down south. It's a problem for Bernie. Those numbers could still shift in his favor as he gets his message out there (as they did in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada). Hopefully black voters will recognize that Bernie is better than Hillary. While he was getting arrested for participating in civil rights marches she was volunteering for a senator that voted against the civil rights act. His platform includes plans for: Public college, public healthcare, ending the drug war, addressing the prison industrial complex, demilitarizing the police, addressing income inequality, $15/hr minimum wage, etc. Time will tell. People have been telling me Bernie has no chance ever since he announced, but right now it's a tie game, and the same people still insist Bernie has no chance. Hopefully you'll forgive me for not abandoning hope now that we've come this far. It is a huge swing, but that doesn't mean the swing is going to continue and turn into a big win for him. You saw the same thing in NV. She was up big, and then he closed the gap (quickly), but it didn't even really turn into a win for him. The trend did not continue. I'd also caution against comparing MA to VT and NH. VT and NH are heavy in independent voters and liberal is more libertarian. MA is more traditional and even Catholic Democrats. VT and NH have a history of supporting the more outsider less establishment candidate, while MA does not. You can even see that with Obama in 2008. Obama essentially ties in NH, wins VT, but loses pretty easily in MA. Like I said, I'm not telling you he's going to lose, but to have much of a chance, I don't think he can lose by 20+% in SC. He's got to close that gap and do it in a week. And Obama is a bad comparison. He's fighting a historically up hill battle in a 2 person primary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Sanders: Voter Turnout 'Not as High as I Had Wanted' http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/sanders-voter-turnout-not-high-i-had-wanted-n523031 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/20/1488200/-LATEST-POLL-Bernie-Sanders-is-MUCH-more-electable-than-Hillary-Clinton LATEST POLL: Bernie Sanders is MUCH more electable than Hillary Clinton FEBRUARY 18, 2016: The latest Quinnipiac Poll of national voters shows that Bernie Sanders performs MUCH better than Hillary Clinton against potential GOP opponents. [click link for polling data] “Sanders has the highest favorability rating of ANY candidate and the highest scores for honesty and integrity, for caring about voters’ needs and problems and for sharing voters’ values." Just remember before you cast that primary ballot, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the GOP. (And if these polls are accurate, then that is not hyperbole). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 21, 2016 Author Share Posted February 21, 2016 . Here is the correct response. "If you think that inheriting your fortune and squandering it on failed building projects and multiple bankruptcies makes one qualified to build a wall, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe his plan is to ask his uncle Putin for the money, that would certainly explain why he's constantly kissing his ass. So to answer your question, a trust fund baby born on third base is no more qualified than a monkey to build a wall. Except the monkey would not emboss the wall with a 24 karat gold MONKEY logo every 100 feet to remind himself he's not a loser" Jesus. Someone hit this ****ing clown already. Please. President zoony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malapropismic Depository Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 One thing I find a little disconcerting and inconsistent or ironic, is that when John McCain ran in 2008, a lot of the criticism was regarding his age. Many people said he wasn't electable, because they were fairly certain he would die of natural causes before he finished his term, if he were elected. Yet Sanders is 3 years older than McCain was, at the time McCain ran. Yet you hear next to nothing about the concerns of Sanders' age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 One thing I find a little disconcerting and inconsistent or ironic, is that when John McCain ran in 2008, a lot of the criticism was regarding his age. Many people said he wasn't electable, because they were fairly certain he would die of natural causes before he finished his term, if he were elected. Yet Sanders is 3 years older than McCain was, at the time McCain ran. Yet you hear next to nothing about the concerns of Sanders' age. I wish that was true, but it isn't. Bernie's detractors use that line a lot. It's BS though, he is only a few years older than Hillary and Trump, and the same age as Reagan was in his second term. (And yes it was BS when they said it about McCain too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/cruz-rubio-south-carolina-219590 Cruz: Rubio had all the advantages ... and still lost Ted Cruz may have placed behind Marco Rubio in South Carolina but he’s spinning the primary as a bigger loss for the Florida senator. Rubio was "endorsed by a very popular governor of the state, very popular senator, very popular congressman, all the establishment circled their wagons around Marco and yet he still only came in second after his campaign promised everyone they were going to win the state,” Cruz said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. Cruz was referring to endorsements that Rubio received from Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Trey Gowdy. Cruz added: ”You know, frankly, if I'd had done that in Iowa — look, in Iowa we had the heavy hitters come behind our campaign. If we'd have come in second or third, you guys would have barbecued us for having all the big hitters behind us and not winning it.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/20/1488200/-LATEST-POLL-Bernie-Sanders-is-MUCH-more-electable-than-Hillary-Clinton Just remember before you cast that primary ballot, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the GOP. (And if these polls are accurate, then that is not hyperbole). I don't buy the head to head match-up polls. The R vs D arguments have not yet been made. Clinton and Sanders both have weaknesses and strengths. Hillary is certainly closer to the center than Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I wish that was true, but it isn't. Bernie's detractors use that line a lot. It's BS though, he is only a few years older than Hillary and Trump, and the same age as Reagan was in his second term. (And yes it was BS when they said it about McCain too). I think part of what drove that conversation re McCain was that people knew that, if it happened, Prez Palin would have been a complete disaster. If he had gone with Leiberman or someone else qualified to step in, maybe it's not such a part of the narrative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I think part of what drove that conversation re McCain was that people knew that, if it happened, Prez Palin would have been a complete disaster. If he had gone with Leiberman or someone else qualified to step in, maybe it's not such a part of the narrative Good point. I don't buy the head to head match-up polls. The R vs D arguments have not yet been made. Clinton and Sanders both have weaknesses and strengths. Hillary is certainly closer to the center than Sanders. I do. People like Bernie, they don't like Hillary, and it's hard to argue with polls that consistently show this same result. Time will tell though. If Hillary wins the nomination and loses the general (probably the most likely scenario at this point), then don't say I didn't warn you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/20/1488200/-LATEST-POLL-Bernie-Sanders-is-MUCH-more-electable-than-Hillary-Clinton Just remember before you cast that primary ballot, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the GOP. (And if these polls are accurate, then that is not hyperbole). Weird. I thought I read a poll a few days ago where Sanders did better than Hillary, but still lost to or tied most Republicans. Think it was this one: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/17/usa-today-suffolk-poll-whos-more-electable/80452560/ (I will say, the polls together do point to the idea that he does better than Hillary in the general, at least theoretically as of a few days ago) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 21, 2016 Author Share Posted February 21, 2016 Trump questions Rubio's eligibility also. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-questions-rubios-eligibility-219586 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/17/usa-today-suffolk-poll-whos-more-electable/80452560/ Sen. Dean Heller endorses Rubio Nevada Sen. Dean Heller has backed Marco Rubio and will join him on the trail. “Marco Rubio is the next generation of conservative leadership in this country. I’ve become convinced that he’s the candidate capable of uniting conservatives, growing our party, and beating the Democrats in November,” Heller said in a statement on Facebook. “He understands what it takes to get our economy back on track and he understands how to keep us safe.” “And Marco understands Nevada, he grew up here. I am proud to offer my full support and look forward to campaigning with him in Nevada today,” Heller continued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Good point. I do. People like Bernie, they don't like Hillary, and it's hard to argue with polls that consistently show this same result. Time will tell though. If Hillary wins the nomination and loses the general (probably the most likely scenario at this point), then don't say I didn't warn you. I think it is Predicto that has already stated in this thread, these are pretty meaningless given the Republican machine has not focused its attention on Bernie yet. While Hillary has had a target on her back for years and years. It is true that a lot of people don't like Hillary and that's her issue even in the primary, but I wouldn't extend to that that people like Bernie. People don't know Bernie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I do. People like Bernie, they don't like Hillary, and it's hard to argue with polls that consistently show this same result. Time will tell though. If Hillary wins the nomination and loses the general (probably the most likely scenario at this point), then don't say I didn't warn you. I think Hillary would match up better with Trump than Sanders. I fear it could be cast as capitalism vs socialism and capitalism would win. Rubio it is harder to say.Add: I would hope anyone could beat Trump, and if it is a Trump Clinton race I hope you will reconsider voting against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 So, I get why Glenn Beck is hot for Cruz. But why ask people to fast with he/his family to show support? Yom Kippur isn't for like 9 months /jk. I forgot all about Beck until I saw his posts online today. Thinking Trump is going to roll in Nevada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.