• NBC: Clinton lead over Trump would more than double without Sanders in the race
    95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50423911]I hate to burst your bubble but trump backed out of the debate because he had nothing to gain from it.[/QUOTE] if he had nothing to gain then why would he claim he was all for it at first?
[QUOTE=cody8295;50424646]Or take the pledged delegate lead by winning california at around 60 percent. That would likely net him the nomination[/QUOTE] It'd probably also take Clinton poll numbers against trump dropping considerably to swing the DNC over to Sanders.
Sanders is Democratic Tea Partier. He is trying to reform the party.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;50423351]Pretty sure Bernie would have double digits on Trump if Hillary were to drop out of the race.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's why he did so well in the primaries.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50424655]if he had nothing to gain then why would he claim he was all for it at first?[/QUOTE] Because Trump says things then later on, after an advisor tells him how dumb the things he says are, retracts them/backpedals/flipflops entirely.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50424070]Because Clinton bought and paid for the nomination.[/QUOTE] Clinton is still hundreds of pledged delegates, and millions of popular votes ahead of Sanders, and this is after Sanders has massively outspent her campaign so far in the primary. I know it's hard, but you're eventually going to have to come to terms with the fact more people wanted Clinton than Sanders.
If you lose voters just because you have competition, that doesn't make it the fault of the competition. That just means that you aren't actually good enough to win legitimately. I'm sure that if Hillary wasn't in the race, Bernie would have a gargantuan lead on trump but what-if scenarios aren't reality. [editline]30th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;50424738]Yeah that's why he did so well in the primaries.[/QUOTE] If some no-name unpopular senator from [I]vermont[/I] can be serious competition to a Clinton then yes, that is why.
[QUOTE=Maegord;50425334]Clinton is still hundreds of pledged delegates, and millions of popular votes ahead of Sanders, and this is after Sanders has massively outspent her campaign so far in the primary. I know it's hard, but you're eventually going to have to come to terms with the fact more people wanted Clinton than Sanders.[/QUOTE] When people get their info from media that constantly includes superdelegates, even in the beginning when she immediately had over 3-400, people are gonna say "what's the point in voting for Sanders?" The media and establishment want Clinton. There's a huge enthusiasm gap when you compare Sanders supporters versus Clinton supporters.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;50425432]When people get their info from media that constantly includes superdelegates, even in the beginning when she immediately had over 3-400, people are gonna say "what's the point in voting for Sanders?" The media and establishment want Clinton. There's a huge enthusiasm gap when you compare Sanders supporters versus Clinton supporters.[/QUOTE] Also worth noting that the same media in most cases outright refuses to mention Sanders at all, leaving many potential voters purposely in the dark about their options. Hell, they'd rather go on ALL day about Trump and not, for example, Sanders visiting smaller towns to actually hear the issues of the people there.
[QUOTE=ChrisR;50425548]Also worth noting that the same media in most cases outright refuses to mention Sanders at all, leaving many potential voters purposely in the dark about their options. Hell, they'd rather go on ALL day about Trump and not, for example, Sanders visiting smaller towns to actually hear the issues of the people there.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure 95%+ of the United States has heard of Sanders by this point.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50425589]I'm pretty sure 95%+ of the United States has heard of Sanders by this point.[/QUOTE] Sure, at this point. After 46 primaries.
the only time you could really ever blame bernie sanders for hillary losing is if he runs third party
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50425798]the only time you could really ever blame bernie sanders for hillary losing is if he runs third party[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, that's the whole reason why our two-party system is awful. It prevents any third or fourth parties from realistically winning an election, rather than being a spoil.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;50425432]When people get their info from media that constantly includes superdelegates, even in the beginning when she immediately had over 3-400, people are gonna say "what's the point in voting for Sanders?" The media and establishment want Clinton. There's a huge enthusiasm gap when you compare Sanders supporters versus Clinton supporters.[/QUOTE] The media have literally always included super delegates in their totals. This isn't new, this isn't because Clinton 'bought' them out, this is just what they have done for multiple decades now. If anything, you could argue they want Sanders, as some outlets have agreed to change the norm and accommodate his requests, and are no longer including super delegates in their totals, but that's still a change from what they've done historically.
[QUOTE=Maegord;50425934]The media have literally always included super delegates in their totals. This isn't new, this isn't because Clinton 'bought' them out, this is just what they have done for multiple decades now. If anything, you could argue they want Sanders, as some outlets have agreed to change the norm and accommodate his requests, and are no longer including super delegates in their totals, but that's still a change from what they've done historically.[/QUOTE] Super delegates should not even be announcing their choice until at least their state has voted, the fact that they all made up their mind in December greatly tarnishes the process especially when they all threw their support behind the same candidate
[QUOTE=Maegord;50425934]The media have literally always included super delegates in their totals. This isn't new, this isn't because Clinton 'bought' them out, this is just what they have done for multiple decades now. If anything, you could argue they want Sanders, as some outlets have agreed to change the norm and accommodate his requests, and are no longer including super delegates in their totals, but that's still a change from what they've done historically.[/QUOTE] Allow me to bring this back from the not-too-distant past. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5llLIKM9Yc[/media] Superdelegates [i]do not vote[/i] until the national convention in July. For the MSM to even announce their intent (and for whichever reason they choose Clinton) is purely stratagem and in the interest of the establishment.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;50425986]Allow me to bring this back from the not-too-distant past. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5llLIKM9Yc[/media] Superdelegates [i]do not vote[/i] until the national convention in July. For the MSM to even announce their intent (and for whichever reason they choose Clinton) is purely stratagem and in the interest of the establishment.[/QUOTE] And that is one of the points the Democrats wan't her gone, real Bias when there shouldn't have been bias.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;50424738]Yeah that's why he did so well in the primaries.[/QUOTE] For a no-name senator from Vermont challenging the most powerful Democrat with the entire media against him yeah he did do pretty well.
The superdelegate situation is a bit fucked since Clinton has more proportionally than Bernie does despite being much closer in regular delegate counts but every single time I've seen "the media" (stop using this phrase pls be specific) report on the primaries they almost always distinguish between the two, particularly in TV and print.
I figured "the media" was a well-known colloquialism for the three big mainstream news outlets. For instance, NBC does not readily distinguish between regular delegates and superdelegates on their website. CNN and Fox News have separate counters but they're in very tiny font off to the side of the total delegate count, which is in a huge bold font and includes superdelegates. It is shitty journalism to include superdelegates in the overall delegate count because [I]they haven't voted and can switch at any time[/I] like they did in 2008. It's misleading. The total count shown should be pledged delegates only with a separate counter for superdelegates that is noted that they are unbound and can change their vote at any time.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50425589]I'm pretty sure 95%+ of the United States has heard of Sanders by this point.[/QUOTE] You being "pretty sure" of something does not make it fact.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;50425432]When people get their info from media that constantly includes superdelegates, even in the beginning when she immediately had over 3-400, people are gonna say "what's the point in voting for Sanders?" The media and establishment want Clinton. There's a huge enthusiasm gap when you compare Sanders supporters versus Clinton supporters.[/QUOTE] People who vote for a winner because they're simply "winning" are stupid voters to begin with, the whole blame does not fall solely on the shoulders of the media.
Am I the only guy in here actually rooting for Trump? Facepunch is incredibly liberal and sometimes I feel alone here.
I am not for any of them. The only reason for me to vote for Trump is to create balance and change in the worst way possible.
[QUOTE=Bleach Qeef;50427639]Am I the only guy in here actually rooting for Trump? Facepunch is incredibly liberal and sometimes I feel alone here.[/QUOTE] Most people aren't going to support someone who isn't logically consistent, and doesn't recognize reality as it is and just says random and dumb shit constantly. Why on earth anyone is rooting for Trump is beyond me, I've had Trump supporters explain it but very little of it every comes off as informative and just emotionally driven.
He's a good businessman and knows how to run a company, which the United States is in a sense. Much better than the alternatives, brash as he may be.
[QUOTE=Bleach Qeef;50428090]He's a good businessman and knows how to run a company, which the United States is in a sense. Much better than the alternatives, brash as he may be.[/QUOTE] I'm going to try to lay this out for you as simply as I can: The US government is not a business. It is not a company. A company's sole responsibility is to deliver profits to shareholders. The US has no shareholders. Trump has proposed treating the US government like a company. This is disastrous. A company is allowed to default on debt or claim bankruptcy due to economic rules established by the government of the state the company is located in. Governments agree on methods of liquefying assets and otherwise defaulting on debt. Trump's proposition of allowing the US to default on its debt is called a [b]sovereign default[/b]. The consequences of a sovereign default are massive. Usually, in the modern era, other governments will renegotiate debts with the countries that default. Under Trump, this would not happen. Trump is right in that the US isn't explicitly required to pay back any debts. This is because the planet is in a system of international anarchy. There is no single social organization at the top of the political hierarchy - instead, there are many governments of many states, each with their own rules, none explicitly bound to the rules of the other states. However, Trump's plan to default on debt is not only [i]incredibly dangerous[/i], it could be catastrophic for the economy of not only the US, but the entire world. Defaulting on debt, as a business would if burdened by too much debt, does not work so cleanly for an independent state. The US isn't required to pay back debts, but other countries are not required to play by the US's rules either. Military action is a fairly common response to a refusal to recognize debts. Other countries will start refusing trade with the US, as it will become a volatile entity with whom trade is risky. Why lend to the US if they have a reputation of defaulting on their debt? You could invest those loans elsewhere and suffer from far less risk. In the same way companies and individuals have credit ratings, independent states have credit ratings. If the US were to default, its credit among the international community would plummet. A currency crisis could result - why would foreign investors want American dollars if their credit is volatile? A currency crisis leads to devaluation of currency on international markets - now the US dollar is worth less, speeding inflation. Seriously. Trump's a businessman, not an expert on international trade policy. His ideas are fucking terrifying. No major country has had a default on the level that Trump is suggesting since post-WW2 Germany. And guess what? West Germany ended up paying back its debts anyways, in order to get better international trade reputation and credit. Almost all defaults result in debt renegotiation - which usually results in [i]the government in question being forced to pay back their debts anyways[/i].
[QUOTE]I'm going to try to lay this out for you as simply as I can:[/QUOTE] In other words, he will bring about the 8 or 7 year troubles, which according to Revelations will proceed the return of Christ. In short, the apocalypse. Yep this definitely needs to happen. Trump 2016.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50427501]People who vote for a winner because they're simply "winning" are stupid voters to begin with, the whole blame does not fall solely on the shoulders of the media.[/QUOTE] If the media is misleading voters then yeah it does dude.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50423209]Bear in mind this is a hypothetical. NBC just did some math to the existing polls with the presumption that Clinton would capture 70% of Sanders supporters. With how Hillary has repeatedly trashed Sanders and his supporters I'm not confident she would get that much of his voter base, but we'll see if a looming Trump presidency changes people's minds.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=mcharest;50423418]I'd just like to point out this entire article is based off of the assumption that a full 70% of the BernieOrBust movement would ultimately switch to Clinton if Bernie dropped out. 70%. Nevermind that this is an overly optimistic assumption, it's also pure guesswork with no reasoning or evidence behind it. In other words, it's simply the percentage of Sanders supporters that NBC [I]thinks[/I] would come over to Clinton's side. They didn't even bother to interview anyone. They just picked 70% for the hell of it.[/QUOTE] I think you have to be extremely mislead by social media and young-trending forums to think that the number of Sanders voters who will vote Clinton purely to stop a Trump presidency is less than 2/3. Most of Bernie's supporters are not hardline 'Bernie or Bust', they're Democrats and left-leaning independents who will support whoever the Democrats pick, plus a fair number of moderates who don't like Hillary but will take anyone else over Trump. I'm sure there will be a measurable percentage of Sanders voters who will not support Clinton. I'll be amongst them. I doubt we'll be anywhere close to the 30% they use as a working number, let alone whatever higher figure you seem to think would be more accurate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.