Support NeoGAF

[RPGCrazied]

Trump is taking questions at his campaign stop today from the press, so we'll prob get an answer then.

He won't, he will likely just dance around it without giving a straight answer. The Trump way.

 

[Davide]

So he's a crook.

Wow dude....just wow.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I have no idea, I'm not saying he's likely or not likely to win the majority of pledged delegates. I'm just saying it's possible, and the numbers for it aren't outlandish. The winner hasn't been chosen yet.

Bernie has won exactly one state's primary (not including caucuses because Cali isn't one and WA/NE show caucuses are hardly indicative of real results) by more than 68% and that was his own.

Furthermore every primary he loses, or even wins but falls short of 68% pushes that number out even further.

Look man. I voted for Bernie. It's over. It's been over.

 

[Mael]

Ah, look! Someone's being reasonable! Bernie's raised a shit ton of money off of a shit ton of ordinary people. That is unique, it's a breath of fresh air (to see someone practice what they preach as opposed to talking out of both sides) and, as someone who donated, I'd like to see him fight for whatever he can get.

His reluctance to get on his knees and kiss the ring shouldn't be so damn offensive to anyone who has confidence in Hillary Clinton. Mother fuckers here acting like he's Trump and Hitler combined just because he's COMPETING. Fuck that. If Bernie staying in until the convention ends up being the reason Hillary loses, then Democrats made the wrong choice. That's on them.

Quit concern trolling about Bernie "hurting" Hillary (boo fucking hoo. She's running for president.) in one post, then laughing off the idea that Trump has a chance in hell in the next. It's logically inconsistent and super whiny.



He's breaking fundraising records left and right while ignoring large donations. He's won roughly half the states so far. Nobody predicted that. Don't act all arrogant with the "well, he still lost. Scoreboard!" bullshit. He's setting precedents that, I used to think, the Democratic party's voters would welcome with open arms. Apparently, I was wrong.

Got any news on his fundraising effort for the last few months?
Because we didn't hear much from his fundraising effort since March.
And regardless of this, it actually meant nothing in the long run, he still lost badly despite outspending significantly pretty much anyone this cycle.
At least you can take solace in the fact that money in politics isn't everything anymore.
Although you'd have to thank Trump over Sanders for this.

 

[Mr Clutch]

Yes.

Shoot, we better inform Indiana and Michigan they did the impossible!

 

[Link]

Wow dude....just wow.

Just using the rhetoric the other side is using. Why are you so upset?!?!

 

[Mael]

Shoot, we better inform Indiana and Michigan they did the impossible!

If Sanders victory there was actually significant enough to carry something like 50 delegates in his favor, absolutely.

 

[DeadlyVirus]

Think again. I have yet to see any Hillary supporter phyiscally attack people, dish out death threats,

Exactly how Hillary threaten Wall Street before the recession, when she went there and "told them to cut it out"

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Shoot, we better inform Indiana and Michigan they did the impossible!

Did he win those with 68% of the vote?

 

[Mr Clutch]

Have you seen the recent polling for those contests? Have you seen the demographics? You can talk about Michigan all you want but he didn't turn his deficit into a 68% win. He barely won to the point where the delegate difference was minimal.

I simply pointed to him winning those states, not making her nonviable or winning by a large margin. Him winning would push her out of the locked nom every news source out there is stating she has with a win in N.J.

 

[Blader]

I have no idea, I'm not saying he's likely or not likely to win the majority of pledged delegates. I'm just saying it's possible, and the numbers for it aren't outlandish. The winner hasn't been chosen yet.

A 68% win in California for Bernie IS outlandish. When you consider he only got 56 percent in the more demographically friendly Oregon, adding 12 points more on top of that for CA is just way out of reach.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I simply pointed to him winning those states, not making her nonviable or winning by a large margin. Him winning would push her out of the locked nom every news source out there is stating she has with a win in N.J.

So what's the end game then? He's still behind in delegates.

 

[Suikoguy]

A 68% win in California for Bernie IS outlandish. When you consider he only got 56 percent in the more demographically friendly Oregon, adding 12 points more on top of that for CA is just way out of reach.

Yep, his Oregon margin ended any chances he had at the nomination.

It's now out of his hands, nothing he can personally do will change the outcome.

 

[JoeyJungle]

CBS and Time are reporting that sources tell them Trump was "Just joking" about debating Bernie

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._sanders_donald_trump_say_they_ll_debate.html

http://time.com/4349162/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-debate/

 

[Mael]

I simply pointed to him winning those states, not making her nonviable or winning by a large margin. Him winning would push her out of the locked nom every news source out there is stating she has with a win in N.J.

Who gives a shit by the time N.J is done, the contest will be done and over.
It's like if he jeb Bush won the Washington DC primary, big woop, he still lose in the end.

 

[Clockwork5]

No.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I didn't know that Rassmusen poll was released today/last night. So she is up 1 point now. That is quite the nosedive though, in the past two weeks.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the polls when the State Dept. report is reflected in them.

 

[Mr Clutch]

So what's the end game then? He's still behind in delegates.

I think Bernie has made his end game very clear, a contested convention and attempted persuasion to switch the Super-Delegate support. Will it work? You never know (but as a realist, its unlikely.)

 

[Balphon]

Shoot, we better inform Indiana and Michigan they did the impossible!

Let me put it this way.

Sanders's victory is Michigan was viewed as pretty much the greatest upset in the history of primary voting.

If Sanders exceeded that feat in every single primary from here on out and won each by ten times his margin of victory in Michigan, he would still be behind in pledged delegates.

 

[Link]

I didn't know that Rassmusen poll was released today/last night. So she is up 1 point now. That is quite the nosedive though, in the past two weeks.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the polls when the State Dept. report is reflected in them.

I've actually seen those results:

 

[JoeyJungle]

I didn't know that Rassmusen poll was released today/last night. So she is up 1 point now. That is quite the nosedive though, in the past two weeks.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the polls when the State Dept. report is reflected in them.

It'll be more interesting what will happen after she clinches the nom and after the DNC convention. Especially if/when Bernie endorses her.

 

[Mr Clutch]

Who gives a shit by the time N.J is done, the contest will be done and over.
It's like if he jeb Bush won the Washington DC primary, big woop, he still lose in the end.

I was simply defending my position on the question. I had asked if it was possible she loses, by wither a large or minuscule margin, and was immediately shut down and told that it was impossible she loses. I'm aware it wouldn't mean much in the sense of delegate count, but Bernie has made it clear he intends to persuade the SD to change their votes at the convention. The momentum would help.

 

[Pastry]

That's pretty embarrassing to bite on obvious bull from Trump right before you go on late night television. I have a feeling he'll double down on it.

 

[Wallach]

Shoot, we better inform Indiana and Michigan they did the impossible!

She can lose every single remaining state in the union 60-40 and would walk into the convention with more than a 100 delegate lead over Sanders.

If you gave him literally every single remaining delegate in every state in the union except California, she would only have to win California by a 9 point margin or more to still walk into the convention with more delegates.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I think Bernie has made his end game very clear, a contested convention and attempted persuasion to switch the Super-Delegate support. Will it work? You never know (but as a realist, its unlikely.)

How is it a contested convention when she would go in with the delegate lead and win on the first vote? The only super that has flipped recently have not been in the direction he wants.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I simply pointed to him winning those states, not making her nonviable or winning by a large margin. Him winning would push her out of the locked nom every news source out there is stating she has with a win in N.J.

Demographics are destiny. You can't compare states without taking the demographics into account.

 

[Clockwork5]

Let me put it this way.

Sanders's victory is Michigan was viewed as pretty much the greatest upset in the history of primary.

If Sanders exceeded that feat in every single primary from here on out and won each by ten times his margin of victory in Michigan, he would still be behind in pledged delegates.

I would say Weat Virginia was a monumental upset as well. Hillary was supposed to win big. Until she told the coal miners she was going to destroy their jobs.

 

[Goodstyle]

I simply pointed to him winning those states, not making her nonviable or winning by a large margin. Him winning would push her out of the locked nom every news source out there is stating she has with a win in N.J.

I'm not sure your getting it here. If Bernie doesn't win Cali and NJ by big enough margins, he will go into the convention with less delegates and less of the popular vote. There won't be any states left for him to make up the deficit, in other words, he'll lose. Momentum isn't a thing, if he doesn't have more delegates or votes, SD's, which largely prefer Hillary, will have no reason to switch over to him.

 

[off duty ninja]

So we're just ignoring research and statistics now?

I believe the statistics are completely true. Even though I am an independent I still have values and ideals. For example, I pretty much vote democrat but it is not because I love democrats or their party but rather their values and ideals line up mostly with mine.

When you are given 2 choices (red or blue) people are obviously going to vote in ways that appear to favor one party or another. I can only presume that I would be identified as a non-committal democrat if you looked at my voting history. That is only because for my vote they are typically the lesser of two evils.

 

[Horns]

CBS and Time are reporting that sources tell them Trump was "Just joking" about debating Bernie

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._sanders_donald_trump_say_they_ll_debate.html

http://time.com/4349162/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-debate/

Never trust the first, second, or third thing Trump says.

-Sincerely Snopes.com, Politifact.com, Factcheck.org, Washington Post's Fact Checker, and those who have to check Trump's statements everywhere.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I would say Weat Virginia was a monumental upset as well. Hillary was supposed to win big. Until she told the coal miners she was going to destroy their jobs.

Do you have any polling that reflects this statement?

 

[Link]

I was simply defending my position on the question. I had asked if it was possible she loses, by wither a large or minuscule margin, and was immediately shut down and told that it was impossible she loses. I'm aware it wouldn't mean much in the sense of delegate count, but Bernie has made it clear he intends to persuade the SD to change their votes at the convention. The momentum would help.

Sanders supporters: Always complaining about how the nomination was stolen; want him to steal the nomination.

You guys have to realize how bad a look this is by now, right?

 

[Clockwork5]

I've actually seen those results:

Thanks for the contribution to the conversation. It's fun when someone's ideological convictions do not allow them to even consider what will most likely happen to their candidate when legitimately negative news is released about them.

 

[JustenP88]

Got any news on his fundraising effort for the last few months?
Because we didn't hear much from his fundraising effort since March.
And regardless of this, it actually meant nothing in the long run, he still lost badly despite outspending significantly pretty much anyone this cycle.
At least you can take solace in the fact that money in politics isn't everything anymore.
Although you'd have to thank Trump over Sanders for this.

More smug nonsense. What's your take on Citizen's United? Keep in mind, any answer other than "I think it's great!" is blatant hypocrisy given the post I quoted.

I really hate that I align so much politically with an institution that incubates such cancerous attitudes. And before you go with the Democratic Party's official platform of "Republicans are more evil!", keep in mind that I'm not interested in measuring success by simply being better than the worst.

 

[zou]

Yep, his Oregon margin ended any chances he had at the nomination.

It's now out of his hands, nothing he can personally do will change the outcome.

And he lost the open Washington primary 53/47. No way is he winning in CA.

 

[Mr Clutch]

Sanders supporters: Always complaining about how the nomination was stolen; want him to steal the nomination.

You guys have to realize how bad a look this is by now, right?

Steal the nomination? First, go look through this thread and you will see I do not believe the nomination was stolen. Second, how is it stealing the nomination? You are so quick to accept the support of Super Delegates, but vilify them if they were to switch their stance. Hypocrisy much?

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Sanders looks pretty desperate here, and naive.

 

[LilZippa]

Sanders supporters: Always complaining about how the nomination was stolen; want him to steal the nomination.

You guys have to realize how bad a look this is by now, right?

I hear this all the time, but not from Bernie supporters.

 

[mreddie]

It's not happening? Is it because Trump has no ammo on Bern?

 

[Blader]

Steal the nomination? First, go look through this thread and you will see I do not believe the nomination was stolen. Second, how is it stealing the nomination? You are so quick to accept the support of Super Delegates, but vilify them if they were to switch their stance. Hypocrisy much?

The default line among Sanders supporters -- and the campaign itself -- is that supers unfairly stack the deck in Hillary's favor.

So if you have a problem with supers being an example of a rigged and undemocratic establishment, why do those same people then have no problem if Bernie were only to secure the nomination by winning over those supers? Is it only undemocratic when the supers are supporting Hillary?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Steal the nomination? First, go look through this thread and you will see I do not believe the nomination was stolen. Second, how is it stealing the nomination? You are so quick to accept the support of Super Delegates, but vilify them if they were to switch their stance. Hypocrisy much?

Super delegates have never acted against the pledged delegate leader. Maybe they might one day but there would have to be a much better reason to justify it. Like a conspiratorial nutjob taking over the nomination or something legitimately dangerous.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Thanks for the contribution to the conversation. It's fun when someone's ideological convictions do not allow them to even consider what will most likely happen to their candidate when legitimately negative news is released about them.

Las Vegas barely budged. In fact, her chances are back to 64%.

 

[Armaros]

Steal the nomination? First, go look through this thread and you will see I do not believe the nomination was stolen. Second, how is it stealing the nomination? You are so quick to accept the support of Super Delegates, but vilify them if they were to switch their stance. Hypocrisy much?

So much for the Bernie talk about will of the voters.

So its predicted to be a 6 million vote gap by the end of the primary between Hillary and Bernie.

And you want superdelegtes to override those votes to let Bernie win?

How about that blatant Hypocrisy?

 

[JustenP88]

I hear this all the time, but not from Bernie supporters.

That's a classic Clintonite strategy. Try to paint your opponent's (Sanders) narrative as the same as whatever lunatic ideals you see from their fringe supporters, regardless of whether that fringe is large enough to be statistically relevant at all. Same thing with the "vast rightright wing conspiracy" meme.

PUMA came from Clinton supporters in '08. This shit just happens and it doesn't matter.

 

[Mr Clutch]

The default line among Sanders supporters -- and the campaign itself -- is that supers unfairly stack the deck in Hillary's favor.

So if you have a problem with supers being an example of a rigged and undemocratic establishment, why do those same people then have no problem if Bernie were only to secure the nomination by winning over those supers? Is it only undemocratic when the supers or supporting Hillary?

I understand what you are saying, however, if Supers we tied to the winner of the popular vote in their respective state, then the race would look a lot closer.

Also, I do think the Supers stacked the deck. They stacked from a public image standpoint. People will choose a candidate with the best chance to win. If they see a candidate is leading, they tend to support said candidate. Noe, this doesn't apply to all voters, but not all voters are as invested or informed in the election. Had the Supers not been used throughout the election process by the media and poll after poll, showcasing a large lead from Hillary, negating any movement or momentum gained by Bernie, then the race would be a lot different.

 

[Sirpopopop]

He has tons of ammo on Bernie, but he will never use it.

He wants Bernie's supporters.

 

[Armaros]

That's a classic Clintonite strategy. Try to paint your opponent's (Sanders) narrative as the same as whatever lunatic ideals you see from their fringe supporters, regardless of whether that fringe is large enough to be statistically relevant at all. Same thing with the "vast rightright wing conspiracy" meme.

PUMA came from Clinton supporters in '08. This shit just happens and it doesn't matter.

Just like how EVERYONE IS STACKED AGAINST BERNIE Conspiracy theory is a classic ron paul supporter strategy that has moved over to Bernie.

"He doesn't get enough MSM coverage'

All bullshit.

I understand what you are saying, however, if Supers we tied to the winner of the popular vote in their respective state, then the race would look a lot closer.

Also, I do think the Supers stacked the deck. They stacked from a public image standpoint. People will choose a candidate with the best chance to win. If they see a candidate is leading, they tend to support said candidate. Noe, this doesn't apply to all voters, but not all voters are as invested or informed in the election. Had the Supers not been used throughout the election process by the media and poll after poll, showcasing a large lead from Hillary, negating any movement or momentum gained by Bernie, then the race would be a lot different.

Super Delegates convinced 3 million and counting voters to vote HIllary over Bernie?

Sure, whatever helps you rationalize his loss with excuses.

 

[Mr Clutch]

Super delegates have never acted against the pledged delegate leader. Maybe they might one day but there would have to be a much better reason to justify it. Like a conspiratorial nutjob taking over the nomination or something legitimately dangerous.

Trump? lol

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I understand what you are saying, however, if Supers we tied to the winner of the popular vote in their respective state, then the race would look a lot closer.

Closer in what way? He would still be losing significantly and if supers were tied to the winner of their state, they would just be pledged delegates and no longer need to exist.

 

[Suikoguy]

Trump? lol

Or John Edwards affair on his wife with cancer.

 

[Clockwork5]

Do you have any polling that reflects this statement?

They don't poll WV very far out but the reference point that most everyone (seriously at the beginning of the primary process it was unanimously assumed she would carry the state easily) used to come to the conclusion that she was going to win was her 41% victory over Obama in the 2008 primary.

In 2016 she lost to Sanders by 16%