'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[Kevin Seitzer]

Yes that's apparent, but when you beat someone 75-25 , 75-25 and 80-20, that's saying something.

He started in a 15 foot hole, just think if he'd started on even ground.

I'm just saying counting him out is folly, he'll have quite a bit to say before it's all said and done.

But you know, with each--he has no chance, each, I told you so will be sweeter.............. :P

He didn't start in a 15-foot hole, that's where he was after about half the nation had voted. It's the voters that put him in the 15-foot hole, not the DNC or the Illuminati.

You have a bit of a false martyr complex going. There are quite a few of us here who would be happy if Sanders won the nomination. We just think it looks extremely unlikely at this point. Clinton has a ~90% chance to win the nomination. I don't think he should drop out. I voted for him in Texas. But I guess you can gloat in my face or whatever makes you feel better in the unlikely event that Sanders takes the nomination.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I can also kinda see your point to be annoyed that people are already telling you to get ready to vote for Hillary in the general election, and how she serves your interest as well as Sanders does, as compared to a Republican. I would find that annoying, too. Your vote is your vote, and you can decide what your interests are. And while Sanders has a huge uphill climb, he's not mathematically eliminated yet, so if you want to hold out hope, who are we to tell you it's a hopeless cause?

[GwynnInTheHall]

He didn't start in a 15-foot hole, that's where he was after about half the nation had voted. It's the voters that put him in the 15-foot hole, not the DNC or the Illuminati.

You have a bit of a false martyr complex going. There are quite a few of us here who would be happy if Sanders won the nomination. We just think it looks extremely unlikely at this point. Clinton has a ~90% chance to win the nomination. I don't think he should drop out. I voted for him in Texas. But I guess you can gloat in my face or whatever makes you feel better in the unlikely event that Sanders takes the nomination.

I totally disagree. people have been saying since 2012 that Hillary was going to be the Next POTUS, and by people I mean the Media and top Democrats through the country. It's been common knowledge that she'd run and that she was expected to win. The Media has been on her side from day 4 years before one. Most of the mainstream media are owned by those who also are among Hillary's top 10 donors. They frame the discussion, the have continually painted Bernie in a negative light hoping that people will not take the time to listen to both candidates and actually choose one over the other based on the issues. When people say it's over either they 1. Haven't taken the time to research the upcoming primaries, where they're located and how Sanders is polling or 2. they HOPE someone hears them and losses faith and allows only Hillary supporters to keep up the fight.

Obama LOST the popular vote to Hillary and still won enough delegates to get the nomination. If, and this is possible, Bernie ties or is close to Hillary in pledged delegates come Convention and the Supers make the call and choose Hillary, I guarantee there will be hell to pay at the convention.


What would make me feel better if everyone would t actually take the time to take EVERYTHING into consideration with this race rather than crunch some numbers and call it early. If you really support Bernie then you should be doing everything you can to garner every vote going forward so that he can WIN rather than giving a premature eulogy and off handed, I always supported that guy. If you support the guy, fight for him.

I do take some pleasure in saying--fuck you I was right when I've had to deal with a barrage of You're an idiot comments. I think that's pretty universal whether it's voiced or not.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I can also kinda see your point to be annoyed that people are already telling you to get ready to vote for Hillary in the general election, and how she serves your interest as well as Sanders does, as compared to a Republican. I would find that annoying, too. Your vote is your vote, and you can decide what your interests are. And while Sanders has a huge uphill climb, he's not mathematically eliminated yet, so if you want to hold out hope, who are we to tell you it's a hopeless cause?

250 pledged delegates behind with 2000 to go isn't hopeless to me. If he crushes her in California like he did in the other Western states can beat her in Wisconsin and tie her in NY, it's anyone's game.

he started 60 points behind her in the National polls, he's closed that to withing the margin of error and is even ahead in a couple.

I appreciate your allowing me my passion and yes, it is annoying as Hillary represents quite a few things I abhor. She's NOTHING like Bernie, she may pretend to be to garner favor from sanders supporters, but she'd say anything to get elected.

Again, that's for allowing me my vent.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Yeah, pretty much everyone on the Dem side of this board is a Sanders supporter. But GitH is going to say "fuck you" to all of us should Sanders get the nomination? Uh, ok.

I will vote for Sanders in the New Mexico primary, too, in June. I will vote for either of Sanders or Hillary in the general in what will be the easiest electoral decision of my lifetime.

Re read my post.

See you in a week.

Dodgers suck.

[Lucky]

Yeah, GITH loves to be the Lone Ranger, while I'll bet with eld that most of the Dems here are Bernie people. There's a difference between supporting someone and seeing which way the wind blows. I think Bernie can win, but he has some work to do. And it doesn't help that so many of his fans keep running out this crazy election fraud sh*t.

And Doig, you keep saying that people were predicting Hillary as POTUS two years ago. Yeah, no democrat looked like a candidate two years ago. Bernie was a huge surprise at the last moment. By then, the frontrunner identity had taken hold. Just like Trump has stayed the frontrunner, even when Cruz got pretty close to him once.

There's quite a bit of time left. A lot of metrics favor HRC, but some favor Bernie. Nothing in stone. I'm still feeling the Bern.

[baldgriff]

Interesting take from MSNBC - from USUNCUT

http://usuncut.com/politics/morning-...sanders-video/

[heyelander]

Yeah, pretty much everyone on the Dem side of this board is a Sanders supporter. But GitH is going to say "fuck you" to all of us should Sanders get the nomination? Uh, ok.

Seriously, by making this mostly about him, I've become less of a Sanders supporter at this point.

[Hodor]

Seriously, by making this mostly about him, I've become less of a Sanders supporter at this point.

If expressing my feelings about the situation is making it about me, then I guess you're right. However I think you like to say that in hopes it'll somehow shut me up.

You should know better.

And El D, Obama lost the popular vote, not by millions, but lost it to hillary and still got the nomination

[Hodor]

Interesting take from MSNBC - from USUNCUT

http://usuncut.com/politics/morning-...sanders-video/

Young Turks had a 30 minute segment on something similar last week, but you know it's all tin foil and cry baby stuff.

[baldgriff]

Young Turks had a 30 minute segment on something similar last week, but you know it's all tin foil and cry baby stuff.

[Hodor]

[Kevin Seitzer]

When some states hold caucuses (cauci?) and some states hold primaries, it's a bit weird to talk about who "won the popular vote", as if Kansas only counts for 40,000 votes, while Arkansas, with a very similar population, counts for over 210,000 votes.

Clinton has faired better in primary states in 2016, just like she did in 2008, but that doesn't necessarily mean that more people favored Clinton over Obama in 2008. It sorta does, but only if you define it in a way that doesn't make a lot of sense. In 2016, with the even greater disparity between caucus and primary performance between Clinton and Sanders, it means even less to talk about who is winning the "popular vote."

[Hodor]

When some states hold caucuses (cauci?) and some states hold primaries, it's a bit weird to talk about who "won the popular vote", as if Kansas only counts for 40,000 votes, while Arkansas, with a very similar population, counts for over 210,000 votes.

Clinton has faired better in primary states in 2016, just like she did in 2008, but that doesn't necessarily mean that more people favored Clinton over Obama in 2008. It sorta does, but only if you define it in a way that doesn't make a lot of sense. In 2016, with the even greater disparity between caucus and primary performance between Clinton and Sanders, it means even less to talk about who is winning the "popular vote."

Are the caucus states getting that small of a voter turnout or are the votes counted differently?

[Kevin Seitzer]

ElD, I agree with your point and wasn't trying to subvert it. I also stated that it's the voters who have put Sanders in a hole in 2016.

Saying "Obama lost the popular vote in 2008, so clearly everyone is fine with nominating a candidate who loses the popular vote" is what was bugging me. We know that the nomination process happens through the delegate selection process just like we know that the general election is decided by the electoral college, but at least in the general election, everyone votes at the same time under the pretty much the same rules, so the "popular vote" has a fairly transparent meaning in the general election. Trying to figure out what the "popular vote" means in a nomination process is an interesting exercise.

Lots of old Democrats and black Democrats want Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. And because there are more of them than there are young, white Democrats, Clinton is very likely going to be the nominee.