• 2016 | West Virginia Democratic Primary - Bernie "Just won't die!" Sanders Wins.
    85 replies, posted
I can't wait to see Reddit's math explaining how this means Bernie is winning.
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50296964]Jesus there pathetic can't they just say this candidate won this x county etc then again there not even trying to hide there basis[/QUOTE] You guys realize that news sites often have opinion articles right?
How will the delegates be split after the 51.4%/36% result? [editline]11th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Glitchman;50296922]yeah but... [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/opinions/hillary-clinton-better-candidate-due-to-sanders-opinion-reyes/index.html[/url] leave it to CNN to keep pushing a narrative[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Had she wrapped up the nomination with a series of early, big wins, she would likely never have had a shot at bringing Sanders' passionate supporters into her camp. Instead, as things are playing out, this race gives Sanders supporters time to go through the "five stages of grief" -- denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance -- before they face the reality that it's time to unite behind Clinton for the good of the party and the country.[/QUOTE] Who looked at this shit and thought it was a good line, honestly.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50298435]Who looked at this shit and thought it was a good line, honestly.[/QUOTE] Honestly makes my stomach feel weak to read that line... I don't understand how anyone at any time could look at Hillary and see a viable candidate that could represent the citizens of this country. You can't say she's the best choice for the country without being incredibly gullible or getting some type of financial gain from her being elected.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50298435]Who looked at this shit and thought it was a good line, honestly.[/QUOTE] The fuck? 'It's time to unite behind X for the good of the party' sounds like something out of China or North Korea.
[QUOTE=Robman8908;50298645]Honestly makes my stomach feel weak to read that line... I don't understand how anyone at any time could look at Hillary and see a viable candidate that could represent the citizens of this country. You can't say she's the best choice for the country without being incredibly gullible or getting some type of financial gain from her being elected.[/QUOTE] Looking at it in isolation (haven't read the rest) it could either be 100% accurate or total bullshit to be honest. Sanders has dragged Clinton to the left and created a contested campaign which has involved a lot of young people in the process - more so than Clinton could've done on her own. Now if her campaign can direct those individuals into her camp for the general, she'll be stronger. The flip side of that is that I basically had no issues with Clinton until this campaign which has slowly revealed very undesirable aspects of her personality, making me less excited about her as the nominee.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50298435]How will the delegates be split after the 51.4%/36% result? [editline]11th May 2016[/editline] Who looked at this shit and thought it was a good line, honestly.[/QUOTE] its funny that they think i care about the good of the party. im not voting bernie because i want a democrat lol
[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50298769]its funny that they think i care about the good of the party. im not voting bernie because i want a democrat lol[/QUOTE] Seems to be the exact reason why Hillary and her campaign people are completely failing to understand what appeals to Bernie supporters and why a lot of them don't want to vote for her. [B]EDIT:[/B] It just seems like her campaign seems utterly incapable of grasping that non-establishment people are voting in the primaries and election, too. I just don't understand how they can be so incompetent or arrogant.
[QUOTE=Selek;50298679]The fuck? 'It's time to unite behind X for the good of the party' sounds like something out of China or North Korea.[/QUOTE] No? It's a very common line both parties say after the nomination process. Essentially, "Okay, your nominee lost, let's focus on the general election now".
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50299240]No? It's a very common line both parties say after the nomination process. Essentially, "Okay, your nominee lost, let's focus on the general election now".[/QUOTE] That's the thing, though. This isn't after the nomination process. The Democrats' primary is still on-going and they condescendingly state how you have to go through 5 stages of grief before you accept Hillary Clinton as the one you will vote for. It's very patronising and the whole 'do it for the party-thinking' is exactly what so many people resent and what makes Trump and Sanders so appealing to so many people.
[QUOTE=Selek;50299280]That's the thing, though. This isn't after the nomination process. The Democrats' primary is still on-going and they condescendingly state how you have to go through 5 stages of grief before you accept Hillary Clinton as the one you will vote for. It's very patronising and the whole 'do it for the party-thinking' is exactly what so many people resent and what makes Trump and Sanders so appealing to so many people.[/QUOTE] Same thing was said for Trump while Cruz was still running; I think you're looking far too much into such a common, simple phrase used in an election year.
Make America Great Again.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50296145]I find it hard to believe even a majority of the 20% were early voters. Trump would have gotten a large slice of that as well and it's impossible to believe that the entire 20% were the entirety of the early voters.[/QUOTE] Now that the votes have been tallied, let's see: According to [url=http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/may/10/west-virginia-nebraska-primaries-live-results]this site[/url] there were 443,896 votes total for both parties, with Republican votes accounting for 202,880 of them. This is a ratio of around 1:1.19 (Republican:Democratic) votes. [url=http://www.wsaz.com/content/news/Strong-turnout-for-West-Virginia-early-voting-378539355.html]This site[/url] says there were at least 94,842 early votes cast. Assuming the same ratio of Republican to Democratic early votes as in the final tally--which is almost certainly underestimating the number Republican votes as historically WV has had a 2:1 ratio [or more] of votes in favor of the Republicans during Presidential primaries [url=http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/history/voterturnout/Pages/TurnoutParty.aspx][source][/url]--then around 43,505 of the 94,842 early votes were for Republicans. What little polling data there was had Trump at around 60% of the votes, that would account for 26,103 of the early Republican votes, leaving 17,402 votes for the other two candidates. Those votes would account for 37% of all votes that didn't go to Trump (there were 46,635 votes that didn't go to Trump, 14,742 of which weren't for Cruz or Kasich), or 8% of the overall vote. I honestly can't really draw any conclusions from all of this though, as it's based on estimations and--moreover--the voting results for a primary where there's now only one candidate isn't indicative of anything. This was, more or less, a meaningless vote in the same way if Sanders dropped out a few days before California then still got 23% of the vote would be; it wouldn't be an indication that 23% of the Democrats who voted wouldn't support Hillary. It wouldn't be an indication of anything beyond showing some degree of the support a candidate had in the state, relative to the immediate competition within the primary.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50299240]No? It's a very common line both parties say after the nomination process. Essentially, "Okay, your nominee lost, let's focus on the general election now".[/QUOTE] Yeah, and it's also completely missing why people actually wanted to vote for Sanders. I don't think the article as a whole was terrible, but that line managed to be both condescending and show that the writer is missing the point.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50301462]Yeah, and it's also completely missing why people actually wanted to vote for Sanders. I don't think the article as a whole was terrible, but that line managed to be both condescending and show that the writer is missing the point.[/QUOTE] Sanders cannot mathematically win. Clinton [I]will[/I] have the nomination. It [I]IS[/I] time to start uniting the party against the GOP for the general election.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50304652]Sanders cannot mathematically win. Clinton [I]will[/I] have the nomination. It [I]IS[/I] time to start uniting the party against the GOP for the general election.[/QUOTE] No you were thinking about cruz. Bernie can technically still win, it is just unlikely
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50304652]Sanders cannot mathematically win. Clinton [I]will[/I] have the nomination. It [I]IS[/I] time to start uniting the party against the GOP for the general election.[/QUOTE] Let's be honest here, if it's time to start unifying, Clinton has done a shit job. She has had dozens of opportunities to appear sympathetic towards Sanders supporters and Bernie in general. She's had numerous opportunities to cast herself as a reasonable alternative to Bernie but instead elected to pivot on to Trump and ignore the whole party unification part. Seems like the only thing she's done at all is recently highlight a few of her platform positions that align with Sanders.
[QUOTE=da space core;50304697]No you were thinking about cruz. Bernie can technically still win, it is just unlikely[/QUOTE] Jesus christ do people still think he can win? Are you guys going to keep harping he has a chance even when the probability is astronomically against his favor? [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Aztec;50304700]Let's be honest here, if it's time to start unifying, Clinton has done a shit job. She has had dozens of opportunities to appear sympathetic towards Sanders supporters and Bernie in general. She's had numerous opportunities to cast herself as a reasonable alternative to Bernie but instead elected to pivot on to Trump and ignore the whole party unification part. Seems like the only thing she's done at all is recently highlight a few of her platform positions that align with Sanders.[/QUOTE] Uniting the party isn't about the winning nominee appealing to the other candidate's followers. That's what the whole primary process is for. Uniting the party is "Okay, this is our candidate for better or worse, now let's all work together to defeat the other party". It's a "now let's attack the GOP instead of each other", not a "time to woo my in-party opponent's supporters".
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50304857] Uniting the party isn't about the winning nominee appealing to the other candidate's followers. That's what the whole primary process is for. Uniting the party is "Okay, this is our candidate for better or worse, now let's all work together to defeat the other party". It's a "now let's attack the GOP instead of each other", not a "time to woo my in-party opponent's supporters".[/QUOTE] If that's how you see it then this is a non-issue and Bernie's presence in the race is not hampering party unity. Bernie isn't going to stop attacking Hillary until he withdraws so obviously in order for Hillary to focus on Trump she would need to be confident enough in her support from Bernie supporters at this point now that Bernie is effectively KO'd to focus on Trump. But she can't, because her campaign has repeatedly dismissed Bernie supporters, considered them too young to know the facts, called them sexist and violent, and patronized female Bernie supporters or not voting for a woman. Like I just said, it really is not Bernie's fault that people are still voting for him in mass. Usually contenders that have no chance don't continue to win states. I'm not saying Bernie has any path at all, I'm saying that clearly people are still voting for him because they dislike Clinton to a larger extent than Clinton supporters would like to admit. I've been told the reasoning is because "there are no pragmatic votes in a primary" but clearly the pragmatic thing to do would be to vote Hillary so that she could then focus on Trump, which isn't happening, because she did a shit job convincing people that she is a good enough alternative to Bernie and this is seen in her historically low (for a democrat) favorability ratings and her ability to lose a state she won in 08 by double digits long after Bernie's path to victory has closed. Party unification is natural when a strong candidate emerges among weaker candidates. Unfortunately Clinton isn't being viewed as strong enough to convince voters that Bernie is out and thus the race is continuing.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50304857]Jesus christ do people still think he can win? Are you guys going to keep harping he has a chance even when the probability is astronomically against his favor? [/QUOTE] There's a difference between "cannot mathematically win" and highly unlikely. No one thinks Sanders can win barring some exceptional situation (e.g. Hillary being charged, even then...), but you shouldn't say something which is objectively false and not expect to be corrected.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50304652]Sanders cannot mathematically win. Clinton [I]will[/I] have the nomination. It [I]IS[/I] time to start uniting the party against the GOP for the general election.[/QUOTE] It [i]IS[/i] going to be a contested convention. Also you used 'mathematically' in the same manner that teenage girls use the word 'literally', in this sentence. He has not been mathematically ruled out.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50304857]Jesus christ do people still think he can win? Are you guys going to keep harping he has a chance even when the probability is astronomically against his favor? [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] Uniting the party isn't about the winning nominee appealing to the other candidate's followers. That's what the whole primary process is for. Uniting the party is "Okay, this is our candidate for better or worse, now let's all work together to defeat the other party". It's a "now let's attack the GOP instead of each other", not a "time to woo my in-party opponent's supporters".[/QUOTE] maybe you shouldn't use the words "sanders cannot mathematically win" when that literally isn't true what da space core said is 100% accurate, technically he can win, it's just unlikely (or put more severely, extremely unlikely and almost certainly not going to happen)
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50304857]Uniting the party isn't about the winning nominee appealing to the other candidate's followers. That's what the whole primary process is for. Uniting the party is "Okay, this is our candidate for better or worse, now let's all work together to defeat the other party". It's a "now let's attack the GOP instead of each other", not a "time to woo my in-party opponent's supporters".[/QUOTE] There is literally no downside to voting Bernie until the nomination is called. Uniting the party means nothing until that point.
"the good of the party" implies that parties are good. Fuck parties. I don't give a single fuck about parties. I don't care if the democratic party crashes and burns; what I care about is electing the right person. Fucking dumbasses.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50304857]Jesus christ do people still think he can win? Are you guys going to keep harping he has a chance even when the probability is astronomically against his favor?[/quote] Then don't use blatantly untrue language. If you want to talk about astronomically unlikely, that's the likelihood that Clinton will be able to win without having to rely on pledged delegates. Plus, even if he doesn't get majority of the pledged delegates there's still a good chance that Hillary might not be chosen because of the indictment, either because the threat of it is too real to risk letting trump get a free pass, or because she gets indicted before the convention. So long as Bernie Sanders can be shown to be still viable, even if not nearly as popular, it means he may be selected anyway because he's a safer bet than the candidate that is under investigation by the FBI. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50304857]Uniting the party isn't about the winning nominee appealing to the other candidate's followers. That's what the whole primary process is for. Uniting the party is "Okay, this is our candidate for better or worse, now let's all work together to defeat the other party". It's a "now let's attack the GOP instead of each other", not a "time to woo my in-party opponent's supporters".[/QUOTE] "Uniting the party isn't about making sure the party works for the people that vote for it, it's about whitewashing the party before railing on how bad the other party is." Am I understanding this right?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.