April 5th WISCONSIN primary. The establishment tyranny ends today
235 replies, posted
I just find it funny and hypocritical that just weeks ago the Clinton campaign was demanding that Sanders be nicer to them and now the Clinton campaign says it will be attacking him full force
[QUOTE=Potus;50084239]I just find it funny and hypocritical that just weeks ago the Clinton campaign was demanding that Sanders be nicer to them and now the Clinton campaign says it will be attacking him full force[/QUOTE]
Part of me really wishes Bernie would just do a powerpoint presentation on all the shit clinton has done.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;50081661]Super-delegates aren't the same thing as pledged delegates, if Sanders can close the 250 delegate gap and win the popular vote then it would be political suicide for the super-delegates to override voters wishes.[/QUOTE]
Is there really any basis for assuming all the super delegates will automatically support Sanders once he gets +1 more pledged delegates than Clinton?
Clinton is a political machine, these superdelegates are parts of the democratic political machine. Realistically, I can't see the majority of them switching over. I'm sure a few will, but the majority? An amount to flip the election? Far fetched.
Sure, you could push the "it'd be political suicide for them not to" crap but [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/lose-with-cruz-a-love-story.html]there's now a basis for a political party willing to sacrifice the election to maintain their party integrity[/url] so if the GOP is thinking about it, the Dems can think about it too.
[QUOTE=Durandal;50084161]If he managed to win somehow I'd shit a brick. Not even lying. That'd be crazy unprecedented upset if he managed to get her in her own home state. He'd be lucky if he lost in single digits.[/QUOTE]
New York isn't her home state, though it is actually Bernie's. She didn't even "live" in New York until after Bill Clinton's presidency.
It really pissed off a lot of people in 2000 when she became a senator for a state she barely even qualified to run in.
[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;50084718]New York isn't her home state, though it is actually Bernie's. She didn't even "live" in New York until after Bill Clinton's presidency.
It really pissed off a lot of people in 2000 when she became a senator for a state she barely even qualified to run in.[/QUOTE]
If Clinton hasn't a legit claim to New York then Bernie doesn't for Vermont.
Doesn't matter if he was born there long ago or if she was born somewhere else long ago, New York had Clinton "in it, for it" last and Bernie moved away.
Woodrow Wilson is considered a president from New Jersey because he was governor of NJ prior to being president, despite the fact that he was born and raised in Virginia.
[QUOTE=Durandal;50084161]If he managed to win somehow I'd shit a brick. Not even lying. That'd be crazy unprecedented upset if he managed to get her in her own home state. He'd be lucky if he lost in single digits.[/QUOTE]
I find it total bullshit that people consider NY Hillary's "home state".
She wasn't born here, she doesn't live here, and she literally bought a house here [B]just[/B] so she could run for Moynihan's Senate seat. She did almost nothing for us in Upstate NY, where she campaigned heavily.
All I can remember from her time in the Senate are all reasons I refuse to vote for her, mainly her votes for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for voting for the Patriot act. I don't remember her sponsoring a single bill to help Upstate, or even NY as a whole.
I feel like she only used NY as a political stepping stone.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50084732]If Clinton hasn't a legit claim to New York then Bernie doesn't for Vermont.
Doesn't matter if he was born there long ago or if she was born somewhere else long ago, New York had Clinton "in it, for it" last and Bernie moved away.
Woodrow Wilson is considered a president from New Jersey because he was governor of NJ prior to being president, despite the fact that he was born and raised in Virginia.[/QUOTE]
Bernie has lived in Vermont for 63% of his life.
Hillary Clinton about 22% of her life in New York, She became a senator very soon after moving into New York.
Bernie Sanders became a senator of Vermont 26 years after first becoming the mayor of Burlington.
I think your statement is very incorrect
[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]
Regardless of the situation he has more of a claim to be a senator than her. Has also lived in New York longer than her total on top of being born and raised there.
[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;50084774]Bernie has lived in Vermont for 63% of his life.
Hillary Clinton about 22% of her life in New York, She became a senator very soon after moving into New York.
Bernie Sanders became a senator of Vermont 26 years after first becoming the mayor of Burlington.
I think your statement is very incorrect
[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]
Regardless of the situation he has more of a claim to be a senator than her. Has also lived in New York longer than her total on top of being born and raised there.[/QUOTE]
The point is, people address Bernie as "the senator from Vermont" and Clinton as "the Senator from New York" and that's what the majority of the nation will know them by.
Most people never even heard of Bernie Sanders prior to his run where as everyone in NY knew Clinton.
She doesn't have the "real" claim to the state, sure, but in this political game she surely has the stake to it.
[editline]7th April 2016[/editline]
I think everyone here isn't realizing that "home state" =/= where you were born & raised
"home state" in politics is the state you last held a political office in.
Vermont is Bernie's home state, NY is Clinton's.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50084852]The point is, people address Bernie as "the senator from Vermont" and Clinton as "the Senator from New York" and that's what the majority of the nation will know them by.
Most people never even heard of Bernie Sanders prior to his run where as everyone in NY knew Clinton.
She doesn't have the "real" claim to the state, sure, but in this political game she surely has the stake to it.
[editline]7th April 2016[/editline]
I think everyone here isn't realizing that "home state" =/= where you were born & raised
"home state" in politics is the state you last held a political office in.
Vermont is Bernie's home state, NY is Clinton's.[/QUOTE]
It is a valid claim that there was a lot of push back in 2000 though. The term carpet bagger was used a lot.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50084659]Is there really any basis for assuming all the super delegates will automatically support Sanders once he gets +1 more pledged delegates than Clinton?
Clinton is a political machine, these superdelegates are parts of the democratic political machine. Realistically, I can't see the majority of them switching over. I'm sure a few will, but the majority? An amount to flip the election? Far fetched.
Sure, you could push the "it'd be political suicide for them not to" crap but [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/lose-with-cruz-a-love-story.html]there's now a basis for a political party willing to sacrifice the election to maintain their party integrity[/url] so if the GOP is thinking about it, the Dems can think about it too.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this. In fact, I'm going to TOXX it right now.
Bernie Sanders will not get the majority of the superdelegates by the end of the nomination, no matter what.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50084958]Pretty much this. In fact, I'm going to TOXX it right now.
Bernie Sanders will not get the majority of the superdelegates by the end of the nomination, no matter what.[/QUOTE]
Interesting toxx to make at this point. I toxxed that clinton wont be pres
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50084958]Pretty much this. In fact, I'm going to TOXX it right now.
Bernie Sanders will not get the majority of the superdelegates by the end of the nomination, no matter what.[/QUOTE]
Well, I mean, she bought the delegates of 33 states so yeah.
Am I retarded? I thought cruz dropped out.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50084659]Is there really any basis for assuming all the super delegates will automatically support Sanders once he gets +1 more pledged delegates than Clinton?
Clinton is a political machine, these superdelegates are parts of the democratic political machine. Realistically, I can't see the majority of them switching over. I'm sure a few will, but the majority? An amount to flip the election? Far fetched.
Sure, you could push the "it'd be political suicide for them not to" crap but [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/lose-with-cruz-a-love-story.html]there's now a basis for a political party willing to sacrifice the election to maintain their party integrity[/url] so if the GOP is thinking about it, the Dems can think about it too.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50084958]Pretty much this. In fact, I'm going to TOXX it right now.
Bernie Sanders will not get the majority of the superdelegates by the end of the nomination, no matter what.[/QUOTE]
Well, for one. Bill Clinton, who switched to Obama in 08, said he would switch to Bernie if he secured the most pledged delegates.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50084271]Part of me really wishes Bernie would just do a powerpoint presentation on all the shit clinton has done.[/QUOTE]
Delicious
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vht0NWT9qOQ[/media]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50085072]Well, I mean, she bought the delegates of 33 states so yeah.[/QUOTE]
The really fishy thing is that she immediately got the support of more than 300 delegates as soon as the nomination started. That wasn't the case in 2008, and Obama was never as far behind in superdelegates as Bernie is now.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50085130]Delicious
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vht0NWT9qOQ[/media][/QUOTE]
oh this debate is going to be fucking lit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
