[QUOTE=srobins;51201447]Clinton and Sanders were neck and neck, with Clinton only holding something like an average 2 point lead on Sanders back in April[/QUOTE]
Wasn't he only 2 points behind in California? From what I recall he was several hundred delegates behind Clinton throughout the race.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51201582]Wasn't he only 2 points behind in California? From what I recall he was several hundred delegates behind Clinton throughout the race.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, that's part of the issue.. His delegate count didn't represent actual polling, probably had something to do with that whole "DNC pandering to delegates for Clinton" thing?
[QUOTE=srobins;51201585]Well, yeah, that's part of the issue.. His delegate count didn't represent actual polling, probably had something to do with that whole "DNC pandering to delegates for Clinton" thing?[/QUOTE]
From what I'm reading, Clinton and Sanders were pretty neck and neck as far as delegates went, but only after she put a 250 delegate lead on him in March, where she won most southern states by large margins. This makes sense considering the more conservative southern states probably wouldn't favor a more radically left candidate like Sanders.
At the end of the race Clinton had 2,205 delegates while Sanders had 1,846 delegates (this isn't counting superdelegates) They had a 359 delegate difference at the end, so she only gained around 100 delegates on Sanders after her big initial boost.
It makes sense to me that Clinton could have won the Southern states due to Sanders being too far left to be palatable, and she just carried that early victory through the rest of the race. Sanders would have somehow needed to gain back that 250 delegate difference, and considering Clinton's name recognition and public relevance, I just don't see him being able to pull it off, rigging or not.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51201629]From what I'm reading, Clinton and Sanders were pretty neck and neck as far as delegates went, but only after she put a 250 delegate lead on him in March, where she won most southern states by large margins. This makes sense considering the more conservative southern states probably wouldn't favor a more radically left candidate like Sanders.
At the end of the race Clinton had 2,205 delegates while Sanders had 1,846 delegates (this isn't counting superdelegates) They had a 359 delegate difference at the end, so she only gained around 100 delegates on Sanders after her big initial boost.
It makes sense to me that Clinton could have won the Southern states due to Sanders being too far left to be palatable, and she just carried that early victory through the rest of the race. Sanders would have somehow needed to gain back that 250 delegate difference, and considering Clinton's name recognition and public relevance, I just don't see him being able to pull it off, rigging or not.[/QUOTE]
Can I remind you that we wouldn't need to be doing napkin math and speculating on outcomes had the nomination process not been fixed or at the very least heavily skewed in her favor in the first place? We can make meaningless conjectures about who would have won under what hypothetical circumstances until our fingers are ground down to nubs, the substance of the discussion here is that it's absurd we're even in a position to be arguing about this because the democratic process was completely subverted by the DNC and media.
[QUOTE=srobins;51201693]Can I remind you that we wouldn't need to be doing napkin math and speculating on outcomes had the nomination process not been fixed or at the very least heavily skewed in her favor in the first place? We can make meaningless conjectures about who would have won under what hypothetical circumstances until our fingers are ground down to nubs, the substance of the discussion here is that it's absurd we're even in a position to be arguing about this because the democratic process was completely subverted by the DNC and media.[/QUOTE]
I think it's important to discuss when you're arguing that "the democratic process was [B]completely suberted[/B]"
How much Clinton was winning by, and why she had made those gains is a way to help figure out how much the meddling of the DNC was coming into play. If she was making large gains in states that they were polling neck and neck then that would obviously look fishy, but she got a head start early in the race in states where it'd logically make sense that she'd win in.
I'm not trying to defend what the DNC did, but it's unrealistic for people to think that she only won because she cheated.
Again, Clinton has been a household name in politics for almost 30 years. She's already had presidential ambitions, and was 2nd place to Obama in 2008. Everyone knew she'd be [I]the[/I] candidate in 2016. And as the potential first female president, she'll have a lot of people, especially women who'll want to see her win. Most people already have her locked in for their vote in 2016
Sanders was not very well known before election season began. You only first hear about him on social media around a year before the primaries begin. He's got policies that make him a big hit with disenfranchised millennials, but a nightmare for conservatives (and to an extent, more moderate democrats) with how far left they are. As his campaign progressed he was drawing more and more people, but he simply didn't have the kind of star power Clinton did.
I liked Sanders, and I definitely would have liked to see him as the candidate, but while he was running I [I]never[/I] thought he'd beat Hillary, not a chance. If he'd made himself a public figure a year or two earlier, he absolutely would have had a shot against her, but he was just too late to gain the kind of speed he needed to pull ahead.
[QUOTE=Megadave;51200573]If Sanders won the nomination, this election would be an easy one.[/QUOTE]
lol imagine actually thinking this
He would get absolutely demolished, he has no minority appeal, which is a core part of the democratic voter base these days. The GOP would run near constant ads about all the socialism stuff, and he would absolutely butt heads with Trump in the debates, the exact opposite of what works.
I've also seen no evidence of the DNC "rigging" anything. And every time you ask there's nothing but claims that it's somehow common knowledge.
edit: Also the implication that it would be easier, now that Clinton pretty much has a double digit lead over Trump is incredibly stupid.
[QUOTE=Streecer;51202290]lol imagine actually thinking this
He would get absolutely demolished, he has no minority appeal, which is a core part of the democratic voter base these days. The GOP would run near constant ads about all the socialism stuff, and he would absolutely butt heads with Trump in the debates, the exact opposite of what works.
I've also seen no evidence of the DNC "rigging" anything. And every time you ask there's nothing but claims that it's somehow common knowledge.
edit: Also the implication that it would be easier, now that Clinton pretty much has a double digit lead over Trump is incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE]
They were neck and neck until like two weeks ago when Trump went full retard.
Or full retard-er, I guess.
[QUOTE=Naught;51199622]'its for the good of the republic that hillary doesn't get elected'
and then we have trump, who is a million times worse. sounds like some right wing propaganda to me.[/QUOTE]
This may come as a surprise, but it's actually possible to dislike 1 candidate and not support the other. Trump and Hillary are both corrupt thieves and most people don't support either.
Quit associating hate for Hillary with support for Trump
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51202864]This may come as a surprise, but it's actually possible to dislike 1 candidate and not support the other. Trump and Hillary are both corrupt thieves and most people don't support either.
Quit associating hate for Hillary with support for Trump[/QUOTE]
Well, to be fair in this particular instance, saying that it's for the best that Hillary doesn't get elected is basically support for Trump since there's no other legitimate candidates. It's not quite the same as saying you don't like Hillary, which I do also often see people wrongly associate with Trump support.
[QUOTE=elowin;51203021]Well, to be fair in this particular instance, saying that it's for the best that Hillary doesn't get elected is basically support for Trump since there's no other legitimate candidates. It's not quite the same as saying you don't like Hillary, which I do also often see people wrongly associate with Trump support.[/QUOTE]
Not really, just because you think Trump is, for lack of a better word, "better" than Hillary in the role of POTUS, or vice versa, doesnt mean you support either one. Lesser of two evils and all that.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51201750]I think it's important to discuss when you're arguing that "the democratic process was [B]completely suberted[/B]"
How much Clinton was winning by, and why she had made those gains is a way to help figure out how much the meddling of the DNC was coming into play. If she was making large gains in states that they were polling neck and neck then that would obviously look fishy, but she got a head start early in the race in states where it'd logically make sense that she'd win in.
I'm not trying to defend what the DNC did, but it's unrealistic for people to think that she only won because she cheated.
Again, Clinton has been a household name in politics for almost 30 years. She's already had presidential ambitions, and was 2nd place to Obama in 2008. Everyone knew she'd be [I]the[/I] candidate in 2016. And as the potential first female president, she'll have a lot of people, especially women who'll want to see her win. Most people already have her locked in for their vote in 2016
Sanders was not very well known before election season began. You only first hear about him on social media around a year before the primaries begin. He's got policies that make him a big hit with disenfranchised millennials, but a nightmare for conservatives (and to an extent, more moderate democrats) with how far left they are. As his campaign progressed he was drawing more and more people, but he simply didn't have the kind of star power Clinton did.
I liked Sanders, and I definitely would have liked to see him as the candidate, but while he was running I [I]never[/I] thought he'd beat Hillary, not a chance. If he'd made himself a public figure a year or two earlier, he absolutely would have had a shot against her, but he was just too late to gain the kind of speed he needed to pull ahead.[/QUOTE]
Part of the advantage in polling can be attributed to the fact that the entire mainstream media was working against him and telling voters that he was essentially incapable of being elected. They gave him the Ron Paul treatment, you can't deny the enormous impact that media-driven fear of wasting your vote plays on dull voters. Any claim you make about how well Clinton was doing is already tainted by the fact that he was swimming upstream against virtually everyone in the establishment.
[QUOTE=Streecer;51202290]lol imagine actually thinking this
He would get absolutely demolished, he has no minority appeal, which is a core part of the democratic voter base these days. The GOP would run near constant ads about all the socialism stuff, and he would absolutely butt heads with Trump in the debates, the exact opposite of what works.
I've also seen no evidence of the DNC "rigging" anything. And every time you ask there's nothing but claims that it's somehow common knowledge.
edit: Also the implication that it would be easier, now that Clinton pretty much has a double digit lead over Trump is incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE]
A lot of the email leaks have shown a lot of "DNC rigging" evidence.
You should probably check them out.
[QUOTE=srobins;51203699]Part of the advantage in polling can be attributed to the fact that the entire mainstream media was working against him and telling voters that he was essentially incapable of being elected. They gave him the Ron Paul treatment, you can't deny the enormous impact that media-driven fear of wasting your vote plays on dull voters. Any claim you make about how well Clinton was doing is already tainted by the fact that he was swimming upstream against virtually everyone in the establishment.[/QUOTE]
Why would people be afraid of wasting their vote during the primaries??
And do you disagree with the idea that Hillary's support could be attributed to the fact that she's a very well known political figure who was polled as one of the most popular politicians in America only a couple years ago?
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51202864]This may come as a surprise, but it's actually possible to dislike 1 candidate and not support the other. Trump and Hillary are both corrupt thieves and most people don't support either.
Quit associating hate for Hillary with support for Trump[/QUOTE]
I don't associate hate for Hillary with support for Trump, generally. But if you are saying "It's good for the Republican that Hillary doesn't get elected" you are essentially saying that it's better that Trump win because that's the state of the system we live in, [I]especially [/I]when you routinely speak of Trump in positive turns and absolutely refuse to examine him in the same detail that you would examine Clinton.
Also because Sargon has fallen just short of saying that every day for the past year or so.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51205422]I don't associate hate for Hillary with support for Trump, generally. But if you are saying "It's good for the Republican that Hillary doesn't get elected" you are essentially saying that it's better that Trump win because that's the state of the system we live in, [I]especially [/I]when you routinely speak of Trump in positive turns and absolutely refuse to examine him in the same detail that you would examine Clinton.
Also because Sargon has fallen just short of saying that every day for the past year or so.[/QUOTE]
Sargon talks about Trump quite a lot, but it's usually that low-key (and very blatant on one occasion) conspiracy theorist stuff I mentioned previously. I don't think he really cares who or what Trump is, just that the people he's at odds with are the designated bad guys in his conspiracy theory.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]If we lived in an almost half semi rationalish world the emails detailing how the DNC was in cahoots with clinton should have disqualified her from the primary and de facto black listed her from public office and destroyed the credibility of the DNC forever. [/QUOTE]
In an almost half semi rationalish world Trump's campaign would have never gotten off the ground.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]Voting for her isn't just about stopping trump, it's saying democracy is now and far into the future is more is less important than 4 years of trump. [/QUOTE]
I'd make the case that voting Clinton preserves the idea of democracy more than abstaining and letting Trump win on the continuum of morality.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]Clinton wins? actual progressives are basically tossed under the rug because "unity" > progress,[/QUOTE]
Maybe the reason I'm not as mad about this is because I don't fall into the "actual progressives" box but I feel like when 90% of their policies align and the DNC have taken some Sanders policies on to their platform I feel like it's fair to give the benefit of the doubt and assume at least some of the things Sanders supports are going to happen. Again though, maybe my belief in incremental progress makes me not a real actual progressive who's opinion counts.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]because the DNC has shown that a criminal who buys her way out of criminal proceedings, because she has the government, media and voter in her pocket,[/QUOTE]
Criminal proceedings begin with a formal charge, Clinton didn't even make it that far. When you say she has the government, media, and voter in her pocket, do you mean to say she paid off the FBI? How would the media and voters help her? Seemed to me that the media extensively covered her email scandal and resulting failure to indict. What do the voters even have to do with this?
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]after being outed for rigging the primary [/QUOTE]
Nothing links Clinton directly to rigging the primary.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]after a career of using public office as a pipeline for bribes [/QUOTE]
Sources on bribery accusations?
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]and have 3 decades of wildly contradicting stances[/QUOTE]
Hardly.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]can easily just silence the closest thing the american left has had to a christ figure [/QUOTE]
If you see Bernie Sanders as a "Christ figure" then I can definitely understand where you are coming from when you say that Clinton winning would be "a political dark age".
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]and have the public on her side.[/QUOTE]
What's the problem.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51205625]Look at this behavior, completely independant of your feelings about any one policy or your dislike or love for x,y and z politician and tell me this isn't a fucking perfect storm for a political dark age.[/QUOTE]
It's not about "any one policy", it's about the fact that I voted for Bernie Sanders, he lost, Clinton won, and coincidentally shares most of his views. It's a perfectly logical and reasonable move to make. While what the DNC did was unfair (and, in my view, definitely unnecessary) I just don't see it as the deathblow to democracy that other people do. It was always an uphill battle for him. No real name recognition, an independent, and going into a presidential race with the socialism baggage against the biggest personality in the party that wasn't POTUS. It's not particularly surprising that the DNC was tilted in her favor but the key aspect of it to me is that in all these months I've yet to see a smoking gun that lost Sanders the race. But I see the fact that he got 45% of the vote with immense optimism, which is why I don't think we are heading for a political dark age, and I see no reason to suspect why our next two candidates in 2024 are going to be as widely disliked. In that aspect the choice between someone I dislike who I think will do about as good a job as Obama has done and another person I dislike who I think has a serious lack of competence in almost every area of governance is a simple one.
I don't want the alt-right to control this country. Simple as that.
[QUOTE=shadow_oap;51206035]I don't want the alt-right to control this country. Simple as that.[/QUOTE]
Then stop making mistakes
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51206042]Then stop making mistakes[/QUOTE]
Trump's the one making mistakes, it's why he's 6-7 points behind. This should've been an easy election for the Republicans. They could've came out of the 2016 election with the Presidency, all of Congress, a right leaning Supreme Court, a majority of Governorships, and the ability to do whatever they liked with the country. It could've all been theres. I'd call that the biggest mistake.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51206042]Then stop making mistakes[/QUOTE]
"Quit making mistakes " says Guriosity to one of 350 million voters in the US.
[editline]15th October 2016[/editline]
We control who we vote into office, not who runs for office. This election has proven that the US is sick of the same political games we've been playing. Voting in a loudmouth outsider like trump, and nearly voting in a radical idealist like Sanders is proof enough that everyone is sick of this shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
