Support NeoGAF

[boiled goose]

Thank.

You.

This idea that Bernie is generating some unprecedented level of excitement among the future of the party that's being stunted by stalwart establishment fogies is hilariously misguided. It's so weird to see Hillary portrayed as this inevitable, regressive figure standing in the way of what the Democratic Party really wants when she's been handily defeated before by Bernie-like "visionary" figures (i.e. Obama).

Even if you remove delegates from the equation, Hillary is comfortably ahead in popular vote totals. I guess between Hillary and Bernie, Hillary really is what the Democratic Party wants.

I agree this is all fair.

One slight caveat i would add is that Hillary's support is hugely fueled by big money. This skews information and perception a lot.

So it might be what voters think they want, but their views might have been unfairly skewed.

Before getting defensive, think of views on climate change, guns, taxes, etc in the usa. All skewed by big money.

So im not saying it is necessarily a big factor here, but does it play a role? Absolutely.

Bernie and bernie supporters are not just running against Hillary, but big money.

 

[atr0cious]

Now that you mention that....

I love that this person is quoting Huelen for extra schadenfreude.

 

[boiled goose]

This is what people mean by excitement in the context of political campaigns. I thought that was common knowledge.



To be clear, I never suggested Sanders is generating unprecedented levels of excitement. I was speaking purely in relative terms to Clinton.

It can mean both. On gop side for example, "excitement" for trump is resulting in record breaking turnout.

 

[JP_]

It can mean both. On gop side for example, "excitement" for trump is resulting in record breaking turnout.

Of course excitement also helps turnout. But excitement can't overcome numbers. Assume Bob has been around longer and has more money and dominates the ad spaces.

80 people supporting Bob, but with lower excitement.

20 people supporting Jill, but with higher excitement.

You could have 30 people turn out for Bob and 19 people turn out for Jill. Bob easily won but less than half of his supporters even bothered showing up (vs Jill's 95% turnout).

No big deal for Bob in that primary. But what happens in the GE if you put Bob up against Joe, who has closer numbers to Bob, but with a lot more excitement? Maybe Jill could have carried most of Bob's numbers into the GE if she won the primary (with more exposure and the giant political machine supporting her), but with the added ability to generate more excitement that helps her maximize those numbers in the GE.

What do we bet on? Bob somehow changing how much excitement/turnout he generates? Or Bob's voters coming around to Jill (as she gains more exposure and grows her political machine) and Jill continuing to generate excitement/turnout? Both are certainly possible, but the ability to generate excitement could be an important factor this election.

 

[royalan]

When I mention excitement, why do you assume I'm talking about votes? You guys are conflating two different things. Related, yes, but not the same thing or even a 1:1 correlation.

Delegates? The superdelegates advantage is given to establishment candidates by their very nature. That's unrelated to excitement.

Votes? More closely related to excitement, but still influenced by other things. Clinton has a much bigger and experienced political machine that helps her get votes. She has more name recognition and that helps her get votes. It's things like that that Sanders is having to overcome. That's what makes him an underdog. That's why his small victories are a bigger deal. That's why there can be an excitement gap without a vote gap.



This is what people mean by excitement in the context of political campaigns. I thought that was common knowledge.

People know exactly what you mean. What is being said is why does this "type" of support matter when it's not translating into votes and tangible support where he needs it.

You may not be seeing the excitement for Hillary in the way that you're expecting, but it's there. Clearly it's there, because people are coming out for her.

 

[boiled goose]

So is Sanders corrupt? He's using a corrupt party establishment to further his political aspirations.

I'm just gonna acknowledge this, but not bother responding haha.
I'm interested in honest and discussion, not silly little quips.

If you have a serious point, elaborate and I will engage.

(Just FYI, I don't even consider myself a Sander supporter so if you think that I think that he is some kind of perfect, morally perfect human, I don't )

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

I agree this is all fair.

One slight caveat i would add is that Hillary's support is hugely fueled by big money. This skews information and perception a lot.

So it might be what voters think they want, but their views might have been unfairly skewed.

Before getting defensive, think of views on climate change, guns, taxes, etc in the usa. All skewed by big money.

So im not saying it is necessarily a big factor here, but does it play a role? Absolutely.

Bernie and bernie supporters are not just running against Hillary, but big money.

Big money is not the reason Bernie lost the south by huge margins.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I think it's fair to say that Bernie has stimulated a much higher level of passion in a smaller number of supporters, while Hillary has generated a moderate but sufficient level of acceptance and interest amongst a much larger swath of the Democratic electorate. I think Joe Biden could potentially have unseated her, the last eight years as America's lovable uncle serving to give him a huge popularity boost to overcome the campaigning stumbles that felled him when he tried in the past, but the reality is that the Clintons have spent a much longer amount of time ingratiating themselves with the Democratic electorate, and Hillary, specifically, is the beneficiary of A) having eight years in the national spotlight as First Lady, and B) being inextricably linked to one of the most charismatic politicians of the last 50 years, and one who presided over what was a pretty good (though ultimately ephemerally and shallowly so) economic time for the country. Bernie was going to have to be Obama-level or better to overcome that as a white Vermontan Senator running in a 2016 Democratic primary, but he made some amateur campaign mistakes, didn't find a way to expand his message to make it more inclusive when minorities weren't getting on board with him, and is relying on an inconsistent demographic (college students) to both champion and turn out for him.

Bernie is fucked, but he's done far better than a candidate like him should have. Winning Michigan was a true achievement, and he's shown that someone ideologically similar to him but with better bona fides as a presidential candidate might be able to gain some traction. I'm glad he was in the race, glad he continues to be in the race and present an alternative to a politician who represents a number of aspects of the system I think are unbelievably fucked, and glad that his views are getting scrutinized so heavily, because it allows future Bernies to refine their approach into something palatable and electable.

 

[brainchild]

I think it's fair to say that Bernie has stimulated a much higher level of passion in a smaller number of supporters, while Hillary has generated a moderate but sufficient level of acceptance and interest amongst a much larger swath of the Democratic electorate. I think Joe Biden could potentially have unseated her, the last eight years as America's lovable uncle serving to give him a huge popularity boost to overcome the campaigning stumbles that felled him when he tried in the past, but the reality is that the Clintons have spent a much longer amount of time ingratiating themselves with the Democratic electorate, and Hillary, specifically, is the beneficiary of A) having eight years in the national spotlight as First Lady, and B) being inextricably linked to one of the most charismatic politicians of the last 50 years, and one who presided over what was a pretty good (though ultimately ephemerally and shallowly so) economic time for the country. Bernie was going to have to be Obama-level or better to overcome that as a white Vermontan Senator running in a 2016 Democratic primary, but he made some amateur campaign mistakes, didn't find a way to expand his message to make it more inclusive when minorities weren't getting on board with him, and is relying on an inconsistent demographic (college students) to both champion and turn out for him.

Bernie is fucked, but he's done far better than a candidate like him should have. Winning Michigan was a true achievement, and he's shown that someone ideologically similar to him but with better bona fides as a presidential candidate might be able to gain some traction. I'm glad he was in the race, glad he continues to be in the race and present an alternative to a politician who represents a number of aspects of the system I think are unbelievably fucked, and glad that his views are getting scrutinized so heavily, because it allows future Bernies to refine their approach into something palatable and electable.

Great post.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's not fanboyism to say it's wrong for a candidate to claim they're anti-establishment and consistent and full of integrity, and then turn around and join a party to be president, but still continue to pretend they didn't make an exception to their morals just this one time.

When the DNC writes a big check for Bernie in the general, is he going to refuse it?

Maybe it's more his supporters I'd wish would get off their high horse. It's sad, but I have a hard time differentiating Bernie the politician and Bernie the lord of reddit, and maybe that's not entirely his fault, but that's the way it is for me.

I don't think those two things have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[akileese]

I think it's fair to say that Bernie has stimulated a much higher level of passion in a smaller number of supporters, while Hillary has generated a moderate but sufficient level of acceptance and interest amongst a much larger swath of the Democratic electorate. I think Joe Biden could potentially have unseated her, the last eight years as America's lovable uncle serving to give him a huge popularity boost to overcome the campaigning stumbles that felled him when he tried in the past, but the reality is that the Clintons have spent a much longer amount of time ingratiating themselves with the Democratic electorate, and Hillary, specifically, is the beneficiary of A) having eight years in the national spotlight as First Lady, and B) being inextricably linked to one of the most charismatic politicians of the last 50 years, and one who presided over what was a pretty good (though ultimately ephemerally and shallowly so) economic time for the country. Bernie was going to have to be Obama-level or better to overcome that as a white Vermontan Senator running in a 2016 Democratic primary, but he made some amateur campaign mistakes, didn't find a way to expand his message to make it more inclusive when minorities weren't getting on board with him, and is relying on an inconsistent demographic (college students) to both champion and turn out for him.

Bernie is fucked, but he's done far better than a candidate like him should have. Winning Michigan was a true achievement, and he's shown that someone ideologically similar to him but with better bona fides as a presidential candidate might be able to gain some traction. I'm glad he was in the race, glad he continues to be in the race and present an alternative to a politician who represents a number of aspects of the system I think are unbelievably fucked, and glad that his views are getting scrutinized so heavily, because it allows future Bernies to refine their approach into something palatable and electable.

I like Bernie a lot and over the course of his campaign, I started to believe he was more viable in the general than he initially came off. I was always concerned with his ability to connect with minority voters and honestly, I'm not sure what he could have done to improve that.

I have no problem eating crow and admitting he has done way better than I expected him to do (and who knows, maybe he can continue to do better if he gains momentum). It's entirely possible that the polling numbers just don't actively show his supporters so he could do much better in Illinois and Ohio than predicted. My concern would be his margin victory being low. He needs a couple decent size victories in big states to negate Hillary's dominance in the South and while I'd love to see that happen, I don't think it will.

 

[Tesseract]

Bernie is only just begin, now come real pain for Hillary and her corporation buddies who play Street fighter with American lives

Hollywood establishment neoliberlism

Now come real pain

 

[Flo_Evans]

Big money is not the reason Bernie lost the south by huge margins.

Who gives a shit really? All the southern states are winner take all in the actual election and they are all solid R.

What besides Massachusetts has Hillary actually won in D states? Iowa and Nevada barely. Those are generally considered swing states.

 

[Russ T]

the electoral college is so stupid

 

[excelsiorlef]

Big money is not the reason Bernie lost the south by huge margins.

Yeah not running was.

 

[royalan]

Who gives a shit really? All the southern states are winner take all in the actual election and they are all solid R.

What besides Massachusetts has Hillary actually won in D states? Iowa and Nevada barely. Those are generally considered swing states.

This is the same argument used against Obama in'08. We saw how that turned out.

Besides, having a Darn candidate who performed well in the South could help potentially swing 1 or 2 of those states, not to mention help down-ticket Dems.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

I'm just gonna acknowledge this, but not bother responding haha.
I'm interested in honest and discussion, not silly little quips.

If you have a serious point, elaborate and I will engage.

(Just FYI, I don't even consider myself a Sander supporter so if you think that I think that he is some kind of perfect, morally perfect human, I don't )

Don't waste your time if you aren't going to respond. Actually responding to questions is the only way to have an honest discussion. I'm not so sure that is your goal. A simple yes or no would have provided us that. You've gone far beyond that for a discussion you claim to not be interested.

 

[Matt]

Who gives a shit really? All the southern states are winner take all in the actual election and they are all solid R.

What besides Massachusetts has Hillary actually won in D states? Iowa and Nevada barely. Those are generally considered swing states.

This is the worst argument.

 

[Barzul]

This is the same argument used against Obama in'08. We saw how that turned out.

Besides, having a Darn candidate who performed well in the South could help potentially swing 1 or 2 of those states, not to mention help down-ticket Dems.

She could win Arkansas. It's Bill's home state and he'll campaign significantly here for her I think. It's not impossible. Especially if the Republicans fuck up their nomination process that looks like could happen. She'll beat Ted Cruz for sure here.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is the worst argument.

Indeed

That said can we now say that Sanders is winning the Democratic establishment states?


Ha ha ha... I'm kidding I just had to say that.

 

[pigeon]

Who gives a shit really? All the southern states are winner take all in the actual election and they are all solid R.

What besides Massachusetts has Hillary actually won in D states? Iowa and Nevada barely. Those are generally considered swing states.

All the states are winner take all and like 40 of them are either solid R or solid D. So nobody cares about any of those, right?

 

[Pepboy]

So 2008 was an uncontested primary where they barely had any reason to bother voting. Now in 2016, they have a real primary.. and voter turnout for people iding as Democrats (that typically voted for Hillary) is LOWER than in 2008. More people turned out to vote Hillary vs Uncontested than Hillary vs Bernie and you think that's evidence that there isn't an excitement problem for Hillary...? How is that not backwards?

Maybe democrats feel confident that repbulicans are going to lose the general, so they don't feel as pressured to choose a candidate. But I also think many independents are actually republicans who are embarrassed by the party's social conservatism but will likely still vote red when the time comes.

 

[NeoXChaos]

This is the worst argument.

very bad argument. Hillary won the big states and midwest in 08. Lost the nomination anyway. Winning didnt mean anything if Obama kept the margin close to split delegates which is what really matters in the primary. He also ran up the score in red caucuses states like KS and ID. The problem for bernie is that although he is doing what Obama did in caucuses he got blown out in the South while Obama won it and kept it competitive in the big states to follow his caucus wins.

 

[lastflowers]

This is the worst argument.

agreed.

 

[boiled goose]

Big money is not the reason Bernie lost the south by huge margins.

I agree it is not THE reason, but money in politics basically affects everything at this point.

Don't waste your time if you aren't going to respond. Actually responding to questions is the only way to have an honest discussion. I'm not so sure that is your goal. A simple yes or no would have provided us that. You've gone far beyond that for a discussion you claim to not be interested.

Ok let's play.
Is Sanders corrupted by money in politics?

My only honest answer is that from my perspective he seems to be less corrupt than most and definitely less than those currently running. From my perspective I wish donations were not necessary at all to run and that money was as small of a barrier as possible. By taking money largely (mostly? ) from citizens and not corporations he is corrupt than someone who takes money from corporations. Does he take money from rich people? What is the average donation? What is the largest single donation? His metrics for these are much much better for Sanders. In a perfect scenario donations would be proportional to your constituency. No one person can donate a disproportionate amount in order to amplify their influence to both others and the politicians themselves.

http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do

Amazing website.

Clinton
Size of Contributions
$200 and Under $34,778,487
$200.01 - $499 $4,927,936
$500 - $999 $5,716,745
$1000 - $1999 $13,603,063
$2000 and Over $71,156,509

Sanders
Size of Contributions
$200 and Under $80,626,723
$200.01 - $499 $5,062,931
$500 - $999 $3,793,297
$1000 - $1999 $3,297,690
$2000 and Over $1,981,339

No let's go into these $2000 and over in more detail
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Clinton
Contributor, total, individual, pacs
Emily's List $939,881 $930,961 $8,920
Citigroup Inc $883,547 $875,547 $8,000
DLA Piper $847,930 $820,930 $27,000
Goldman Sachs $821,031 $811,031 $10,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $771,111 $768,111 $3,000
Morgan Stanley $754,538 $749,538 $5,000
University of California $608,858 $608,858 $0
Time Warner $591,524 $566,524 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $522,688 $518,188 $4,500
Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
Kirkland & Ellis $443,420 $426,420 $17,000
Paul, Weiss et al $427,062 $427,062 $0
Greenberg Traurig LLP $411,640 $403,540 $8,100
Sullivan & Cromwell $396,625 $396,625 $0
Akin, Gump et al $393,531 $390,031 $3,500
National Amusements Inc $366,640 $363,640 $3,000
21st Century Fox $363,899 $363,899 $0
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000

Here is Sanders.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f

By my own standards then:
Is he completely squeaky clean "uncorrupt"? no.
Is he less corrupt than Clinton, and most high profile politicians. Ho boy. You betcha.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

I agree it is not THE reason, but money in politics basically affects everything at this point.

I dont know how anyone can still say this after what happened to Jeb.

 

[boiled goose]

I dont know how anyone can still say this after what happened to Jeb.

So your argument is that money doesn't matter? Now that's a joke.
However as a fair point in your favor, money actually matters much less in a presidential election and primary.

Why? It is high profile enough that there is enough free media. This is well understood and pointed out all the time by those lobbying to get money out.

Does it still matter? OF COURSE IT DOES.
Hell, even if a candidate doesn't get elected, they still get propped up on stage to spout their talking points. It is basically like buying an ad. Come on now. Your brain can do better. Just think about things for a little bit longer.

"but Jeb! didn't win!" is such a silly silly and shallow 1st grader response.

To help you see the bigger picture here is some data
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-wins/

Candidate with more money (aka legalized bribes) wins over ~90% of the time.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I dont know how anyone can still say this after what happened to Jeb.

I mean, while it was ultimately the same outcome, big money is the reason Jeb was in until a couple weeks ago rather than leaving the same time Scott Walker did.

 

[Rubenov]

Come on now. Your brain can do better. Just think about things for a little bit longer.

"but Jeb! didn't win!" is such a silly silly and shallow 1st grader response.

Take it easy with the insults there cowboy

 

[boiled goose]

Take it easy with the insults there cowboy

It was a criticism to the point, not the person.
It was just such a silly frustrating answer. Apologies.

I elaborated above and here.

To help you see the bigger picture here is some data
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-wins/

Candidate with more money (aka legalized bribes) wins over ~90% of the time.

 

[royalan]

So your argument is that money doesn't matter? Now that's a joke.
However as a fair point in your favor, money actually matters much less in a presidential election and primary.

Why? It is high profile enough that there is enough free media. This is well understood and pointed out all the time by those lobbying to get money out.

Does it still matter? OF COURSE IT DOES.
Hell, even if a candidate doesn't get elected, they still get propped up on stage to spout their talking points. It is basically like buying an ad. Come on now. Your brain can do better. Just think about things for a little bit longer.

"but Jeb! didn't win!" is such a silly silly and shallow 1st grader response.

To help you see the bigger picture here is some data
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-wins/

Candidate with more money (aka legalised bribes) wins over ~90% of the time.

So then how do you account for Bernie Sanders so far outspending Hillary on the campaign trail and still losing?

 

[boiled goose]

So then how do you account for Bernie Sanders so far outspending Hillary on the campaign trail and still losing?

OMG. Did you even read my post... SMH
It was a response to why Jeb lost even if he is outspending Donald Trump... almost the exact point you are now asking about.

Come on people. :/

 

[Flying Toaster]

So then how do you account for Bernie Sanders so far outspending Hillary on the campaign trail and still losing?

Him even being in the race this long and doing what he is doing isn't losing. Will he beat her? No.

But why is she having a harder time locking this up with all the help and dynasty power she has?

I find the Sanders rise to be fascinating.

 

[royalan]

OMG. Did you even read my post... SMH
It was a response to why Jeb lost even if he is outspending Donald Trump..

But your main point is that big money matters at every level, even candidate popularity. You said that a page ago.

Him even being in the race this long and doing what he is doing isn't loosing. Will he beat her? No.

But why is she having a harder time locking this up with all the help and dynasty power she has?

I find the Sanders rise to be fascinating.

But she's not having trouble locking this up. She's still on her path to the nomination, and she's amassed a 200+ delegate lead. Do not underestimate how massive that is. Not even the Michigan loss knocked her off course; she still walked away with more delegates and a larger lead in the end.

 

[boiled goose]

But your main point is that big money matters at every level, even candidate popularity. You said that a page ago.

Yes. And?

Did I say more money guarantees a win?
The post right there says it's about 90 percent of the time and it matters less in presidential races because of so much "free" media.

Did you even read my post?

I don't know what else to say...

 

[brainchild]

Yes. And?

Did I say more money guarantees a win?
The post right there says it's about 90 percent of the time and it matters less in presidential races because of so much "free" media.

Did you even read my post?

I don't know what else to say...

I feel like I'm looking in the mirror when I see posts like these. I understand exactly what you're saying, but it seems like you're talking to a brick wall.

Good luck.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Come on now. Your brain can do better. Just think about things for a little bit longer.

"but Jeb! didn't win!" is such a silly silly and shallow 1st grader response.

OMG. Did you even read my post... SMH
It was a response to why Jeb lost even if he is outspending Donald Trump... almost the exact point you are now asking about.

Come on people. :/

Last guy who posted shit like this here got banned for it. Just fyi.

 

[Downhome]

What is a good interactive map to use to guess the primaries? Is there a good one out there to do that like we can for the general election?

 

[maxcriden]

It's not impossible. I was expecting Illinois to be his big "Oh shit!" surprise win moment, and I still think he'll take it. This is anecdotal as all hell, but college campuses here are Bernie to the absolute max. I don't know a single person voting for Hillary in the primary, even if I've been trying to get people to see reason and vote for her in the GE should Sanders lose.

As you said, though, that's the very definition of anecdotal, especially since we know people are voting for Hillary. Bernie is winning the youth vote but that's not nearly enough.

 

[Yoda]

I agree it is not THE reason, but money in politics basically affects everything at this point.



Ok let's play.
Is Sanders corrupted by money in politics?

My only honest answer is that from my perspective he seems to be less corrupt than most and definitely less than those currently running. From my perspective I wish donations were not necessary at all to run and that money was as small of a barrier as possible. By taking money largely (mostly? ) from citizens and not corporations he is corrupt than someone who takes money from corporations. Does he take money from rich people? What is the average donation? What is the largest single donation? His metrics for these are much much better for Sanders. In a perfect scenario donations would be proportional to your constituency. No one person can donate a disproportionate amount in order to amplify their influence to both others and the politicians themselves.

http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do

Amazing website.

Clinton
Size of Contributions
$200 and Under $34,778,487
$200.01 - $499 $4,927,936
$500 - $999 $5,716,745
$1000 - $1999 $13,603,063
$2000 and Over $71,156,509

Sanders
Size of Contributions
$200 and Under $80,626,723
$200.01 - $499 $5,062,931
$500 - $999 $3,793,297
$1000 - $1999 $3,297,690
$2000 and Over $1,981,339

No let's go into these $2000 and over in more detail
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Clinton
Contributor, total, individual, pacs
Emily's List $939,881 $930,961 $8,920
Citigroup Inc $883,547 $875,547 $8,000
DLA Piper $847,930 $820,930 $27,000
Goldman Sachs $821,031 $811,031 $10,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $771,111 $768,111 $3,000
Morgan Stanley $754,538 $749,538 $5,000
University of California $608,858 $608,858 $0
Time Warner $591,524 $566,524 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $522,688 $518,188 $4,500
Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
Kirkland & Ellis $443,420 $426,420 $17,000
Paul, Weiss et al $427,062 $427,062 $0
Greenberg Traurig LLP $411,640 $403,540 $8,100
Sullivan & Cromwell $396,625 $396,625 $0
Akin, Gump et al $393,531 $390,031 $3,500
National Amusements Inc $366,640 $363,640 $3,000
21st Century Fox $363,899 $363,899 $0
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000

Here is Sanders.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f

By my own standards then:
Is he completely squeaky clean "uncorrupt"? no.
Is he less corrupt than Clinton, and most high profile politicians. Ho boy. You betcha.

Is that a speaking fee from UC? or a donation? If it's the latter that's fucking deplorable, especially when they are raising tuition.

 

[B-Dubs]

Is that a speaking fee from UC? or a donation? If it's the latter that's fucking deplorable, especially when they are raising tuition.

You realize those are individual contributions, from individual people, not from the organizations themselves right? Are the people who work there not allowed to donate money to candidates?

People keep misrepresenting how campaign contributions work. It's annoying.

 

[NotBacon]

But she's not having trouble locking this up. She's still on her path to the nomination, and she's amassed a 200+ delegate lead. Do not underestimate how massive that is.

You do realize Sanders only needs 54% of the remaining delegates to have more pledged than her right? Coupled with Clinton looking more unappealing to voters by the day, the southern states being done, and Sanders gaining a lot of momentum.... this race isn't over.

 

[eBay Huckster]

You do realize Sanders only needs 54% of the remaining delegates to have more pledged than her right?

You do realize that proportion's increasing this week even if he wins all three of IL/MO/OH, right?

 

[ampere]

What is a good interactive map to use to guess the primaries? Is there a good one out there to do that like we can for the general election?

Here's a general election tool:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

Here's a decent primary map:
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

 

[Miles X]

You do realize Sanders only needs 54% of the remaining delegates to have more pledged than her right? Coupled with Clinton looking more unappealing to voters by the day, the southern states being done, and Sanders gaining a lot of momentum.... this race isn't over.

Except, yes it is. I really do love uninformed posts like these that haven't done the math.

Most of your post is entirely opinion at that.

You do realize that proportion's increasing this week even if he wins all three of IL/MO/OH, right?

Willing to bet her delegate lead increases from 220 to 330 on the 15th, that's with losing Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. Which she is polled to do well (Yes polls still count.)

If she actually wins Ohio and Illinois you're looking at a rough 360 delegate lead. Insurmountable.

Hillary 1200/1050
Bernie 818/968

Is my actual prediction, that has Bernie losing by 40 points in NC and Florida (as has been the case in the south) and about even in Missouri, Ohio and a 5 or so point loss in Illinois.

 

[boiled goose]

You realize those are individual contributions, from individual people, not from the organizations themselves right? Are the people who work there not allowed to donate money to candidates?

People keep misrepresenting how campaign contributions work. It's annoying.

Are the Koch brothers not allowed to Bribe politicians? They are allowed and It is a problem!

Individual or corporation doesn't really matter (it is from both). Have you seen the salaries of executives at these big banks? How money gets shuttled into the pockets of politicians that then gets translated into the pockets of bankers doesn't really matter.

Also, it doesnt matter that it is from individuals. Are you ok with the Koch brothers buying off republicans? The problem is that a donation is so large, you are basically skewing legislation and rigging elections in your favor.

 

[B-Dubs]

Are the Koch brothers not allowed to Bribe politicians? They are allowed and It is a problem!

Individual or corporation doesn't really matter (it is from both). Have you seen the salaries of executives at these big banks? How money gets shuttled into the pockets of politicians that then gets translated into the pockets of bankers doesn't really matter.

Also, it doesnt matter that it is from individuals. Are you ok with the Koch brothers buying off republicans? The problem is that a donation is so large, you are basically skewing legislation and rigging elections in your favor.

You do realize there's a limit to individual contributions to political campaigns right? Like most of this post ignore campaign finance law.

 

[Wiz]

Edit wrong thread lol

 

[boiled goose]

You do realize there's a limit to individual contributions to political campaigns right?

You do know that there are other ways to fund politicians than direct contributions to campaigns right?

I mean, are you serious? Have you been following American politics? Hint, starts with super and ends with pac.

You are either completely uninformed or completely dishonest.
I mean, your intentions are transparent.

 

[ampere]

Willing to bet her delegate lead increases from 220 to 330 on the 15th, that's with losing Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. Which she is polled to do well (Yes polls still count.)

If she actually wins Ohio and Illinois you're looking at a rough 360 delegate lead. Insurmountable.

And 200 is pretty much already insurmountable. She'd have to lose states 70 - 30, I mean just not gonna happen.