She has had more voters vote for her than Sanders has. Around 3 million more. As a result she has won more votes where it counts and as a result has a delegate lead of around 200. And he would need to take California by 30ish% to surpass her in delegates. Assuming she doesn't win NJ or another state in June before the CA primary.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Trump v. Bernie Debate
- Thread starter oatmeal
- Start date
- Status
She has had more voters vote for her than Sanders has. Around 3 million more. As a result she has won more votes where it counts and as a result has a delegate lead of around 200. And he would need to take California by 30ish% to surpass her in delegates. Assuming she doesn't win NJ or another state in June before the CA primary.
Aaron Strife
Banned
No?
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary
The only reason people are pegging Cali as a Bernie state is because it's literally his only shot and he's trailing badly.
Interesting also that you say "4 out of 5" because you have to be including Rhode Island in that total. Neglecting to mention I guess that she won PA, MD, DE and CT on that same day, all but CT pretty handily.
I feel like I'm in an alternate dimension in this thread or something.
Bernie Sanders lost. He LOST. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST.
There's no reason for Clinton to debate him. He LOST.
There's no reason for him to debate Donald Trump. He LOST.
The Sanders campaign gains nothing by debating Trump. Because he fucking LOST.
The only person who looks foolish here is Bernie Sanders.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Clinton has handled Sanders with kid gloves, and the GOP has specifically not attacked him hoping to run against him, not Clinton. Bernie would absolutely not win in the GE, his skeletons would blot out the sun.
Orbis Tabula
Member
There's more than 11 states, though. I mean, Wikipedia can give you a run down of every contest so far.
jack_package_200
Banned
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/
She has a 97% chance of winning california.
This. All of this.
I know a lot of people want to see this for some perceived "lol's", but the stakes are a bit higher than your entertainment. You have to step back and examine Trump's motive here, which is a win/win for him and a lose/lose for Clinton no matter how well he does.
Most here seem to hate Clinton. I don't particularly blame you. But if you truly want Bernie's vision realized, this is a terrible way of working towards it. Losing a single primary doesn't sacrifice your chances, but salting the earth and actually reveling in the idea of Trump winning the GE or Sanders running third party as some sort of principle-based high road? That opens up a chance for minorities to legitimately suffer as a result of all of this.
This will not help Sanders become the nominee, if anything it will outright tank any slim chance he actually has. This will not help the Democratic party. This will not help any third party chances. This will only help Trump.
Most here seem to hate Clinton. I don't particularly blame you. But if you truly want Bernie's vision realized, this is a terrible way of working towards it. Losing a single primary doesn't sacrifice your chances, but salting the earth and actually reveling in the idea of Trump winning the GE or Sanders running third party as some sort of principle-based high road? That opens up a chance for minorities to legitimately suffer as a result of all of this.
This will not help Sanders become the nominee, if anything it will outright tank any slim chance he actually has. This will not help the Democratic party. This will not help any third party chances. This will only help Trump.
bobawesome
Member
Say Bernie's a cunt and receive a standing ovation and free blowjobs for life. Say it about Hillary, the queen, and get banned.
Mr Clutch
Member
It really is a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. We could either continue the process we have now with people running and supervising the process, but then we are vulnerable to human error and sabotage. We could switch to a completely digital method, but then we are subject to computing errors and sabotage.
Darryl M R
Member
I don't agree with your logic there my friend. And from what I've read it seems like Sander supporters are expecting California to be a tough state to win.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Bernie has been calling top senators calling for party unity when its time.
I really doubt this is going to be a circle jerk about Hillary.
Bernie still cares more about ideas and issues than trashing Hillary. He has said his top priority is to make sure Trump does not see the White House.
I really doubt this is going to be a circle jerk about Hillary.
Bernie still cares more about ideas and issues than trashing Hillary. He has said his top priority is to make sure Trump does not see the White House.
Shouldn't any opportunity to expose the donald as a fool be taken?
THESE POLLS DO NOT MATTER YET!
I don't think I can go another two months with people parroting the weekly general election polls as if they're harbingers of what will actually happen in November.
Slackerish
Member
I wonder why Trump's campaign didn't like debates... you know, the Iowa debate that he skipped and the March debate in Salt Lake City that he said he would not be there and was canceled after that.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Yeah. And there are issues like closed v. open primaries. Both have benefits. Or caucuses v. primaries. Primaries are better, but they're expensive. Caucuses are cheap. If we want to do expensive primaries, either we get the states to foot the bill, which doesn't seem fair, or the parties become even more reliant on outside donors.
Aaron Strife
Banned
People pinning all their hopes and dreams on big blue states this election will never stop being funny to me.
You saw this shit ahead of New York too, a state Hillary represented for eight years in the Senate and crushed even Obama in during the 08 primary. But no, Bernie's gonna demolish her there!
Well I guess he did win a bunch of counties that no one lives in so hey that's something right?
I looked at just one state as an example - Indiana - they projected 90% of a chance for Clinton to win and Bernie ended up wining by 52%.
It also pegged Clinton at 99% to win Michigan and look how that turned out.
This.
Yeah, especially since the last two Democratic debates have been terrible with pointless attacks from everyone. Why have another pointless one when everything has been said and wouldn't change anything? Especially since it is not feasible for Sanders to get the nomination anymore.
jack_package_200
Banned
The fact that Bernie lost in Kentuckey and didn't win Oregon by a huge 20+ margin in states that demographically in his favor (both are mostly white) is a huge problem.
Independents are mostly people that already lean towards a party but dont wanna commit to saying it.
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
jack_package_200
Banned
The fuck? He won by 5%
Dreamwriter
Member
How do you figure? 60% of 475 is 285. Currently the pledged-delegate gap between them is at 271. So if Bernie Sanders wins 60% of the vote in California, he will have won the majority of the popular vote in the US *and* the majority of the pledged delegates in the US. It's simple math.
SayItWithMe
Neo Member
Exactly...
What I meant was, he won 52%.
This did not happen
Mr Clutch
Member
Surely they meant WITH 52%...
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Bernie winning with 52% at California means nothing, he has to render her nonviable for it to matter at all (and hint - it won't happen).
This persecution complex is adorable.
Popular vote doesn't really matter in the general, but neither of these numbers you quote is correct. Sanders is at like 10 (and declining), and Hillary is about tied. There aren't near as many polls for Sanders either (i.e. Rasmusson doesn't poll Him vs Trump).
But that's with the GOP not having a single thing to attack Bernie. I know you think he's unattackable, but even on direct policy, the man is a lifetime politician with no notable accomplishments during that time (beyond a bunch of amendments to bills, most of which still then didn't pass), who wants to raise everyone's taxes and still spend so much that most experts agree the deficit would balloon uncontrollably under him. He won't be hard to attack.
Aaron Strife
Banned
This is ignoring that Clinton would also win delegates. 190 in your scenario.
You didn't think this through did you?
40% of 475 is 190.
No? Why would you think so?
Being on the west coast it is very weird to see people thinking Sanders has a win in California. Clinton beat Obama in California by almost 10 points in 2008. Compared to up here in Oregon they love her down there. I will be genuinely surprised if he even makes it close in California, not that it really matters. He would need like a 30+ point win there and it isn't happening anywhere except Reddit's dreams.
Dash_Riprock
Member
You're adorable.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Not even that, stuff like him praising Latin American dictators, honeymooning in the USSR, anti-science stances on medicine, praising Stalin's bread lines, rape fantasies etc etc. He would be nearly instantly torpedoed. Plus his inability to handle tough questions would be a disaster.
SayItWithMe
Neo Member
You guys sit here and say Trump hasnt attack Bernie...but the same could be same about Bernie hasnt attack Trump yet...We are taking about a man who doesnt know shit in politics and foreign policy. Clinton or Sanders will eat him for dinner...
I kinda want to see a Trump/Sanders debate to see Sanders get manhandled by the orange troll.
Because let's be fair anything Sanders can throw at Trump he can answer the same as he did 'Jeb?' : "Yeah but I'm ahead in the poll and you're losing, you're a loser"
What is even the point of this debate?
Because let's be fair anything Sanders can throw at Trump he can answer the same as he did 'Jeb?' : "Yeah but I'm ahead in the poll and you're losing, you're a loser"
What is even the point of this debate?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Wow. WOW.
Lan Dong Mik
And why would I want them?
So this actually going to happen? I don't see any reports on CNN or Fox news. You'd think this shit would be headline news if it was actually going down.
Actually it is. Everytime a polling company or research firm looks into it they get the same result - most "independents" always vote one way in an election, they just like being called independents. The number of true swing voters in an American election is really small - much smaller than it ever was, hence the polarisation we now see.
You don't understand proportional delegate rules. Hillary is also getting 200+ delegates in that scenario, which closes the gap by double-digits, but doesn't put him in the lead.
EDIT: I can't tell trolls from the Bernie bros that can't understand math.
I'm wondering this too, and it's hard to read this thread and find out.
Thirteen Republican candidates AND the Sec of State have been talking about Trump and he hasn't felt a dent. What's a socialist dude gonna say that can harm Trump?
It's even worse. *Even* if she was non-viable in California, she now still wins. Puerto Rico and New Jersey will put her over the total before California is even called.
Because it's a good thing to do? Why not?
We'll see, but my money is on it not happening.
- Status