Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
If Bernie wins California by his margin in Vermont he will still be losing. The good news is that you've got through "Denial" on the Kubler-Ross stages of grief, so you only have four more left.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
AP: Clinton clinches Democratic Nomination
- Thread starter Macho Madness
- Start date
- Status
If Bernie wins California by his margin in Vermont he will still be losing. The good news is that you've got through "Denial" on the Kubler-Ross stages of grief, so you only have four more left.
Clinton only needs something like 25% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. Other outlets will likely call the election when the polls close in NJ tomorrow.
Claude Augario
Member
If Hillary wins, this will be the 6th Presidential election since 1992 where the Democrat wins the popular vote.
The GOP will have won one popular vote: 2004. And it will have come largely from Dubya all but tap-dancing around Ground Zero for much of that campaign season.
I want to see them break, so that we can have this realignment. If they break, the political center of gravity in this country - the center of that rope in the tug of war - lurches further to the left. If Trump wins, they learn that Trumpism yields results, and the lurch never happens. Incentive to move leftward dissipates. If Hillary wins, SCOTUS forces them leftwards, and pressure to adapt continues to ratchet upward.
They must be broken. Our legislature is structured such that it almost always takes either a supermajority (rare) or bipartisan cooperation in order to accomplish things. We need two sane parties.
The GOP will have won one popular vote: 2004. And it will have come largely from Dubya all but tap-dancing around Ground Zero for much of that campaign season.
I want to see them break, so that we can have this realignment. If they break, the political center of gravity in this country - the center of that rope in the tug of war - lurches further to the left. If Trump wins, they learn that Trumpism yields results, and the lurch never happens. Incentive to move leftward dissipates. If Hillary wins, SCOTUS forces them leftwards, and pressure to adapt continues to ratchet upward.
They must be broken. Our legislature is structured such that it almost always takes either a supermajority (rare) or bipartisan cooperation in order to accomplish things. We need two sane parties.
Doesn't really matter what you or Bernie believe. This is happening.
I'm fully expecting some of them to get death threats.
OneEightZero
aka ThreeOneFour
GoldenEye 007
Member
Yuuuuup. I want to see the GOP break. They're doing a great job so far. But the knife needs to be twisted even more.
DOWN
Banned
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
Something I find incredibly funny is a week or two from now when this thing is really over the only thing Sanders or bust people will have to fall back on is this indictment nonsense over 'her damn emails'.
That outburst from Bernie at the debate is the one memorable thing he did in the debates. So again "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails."
That outburst from Bernie at the debate is the one memorable thing he did in the debates. So again "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails."
And_Gignac
Member
This.
You can vote for Clinton, be a warrior for the progressive agenda and still not idealize her or STAN FOR HA. She is as questionable as any other politician. Her being the bearer of the liberal movement does not excuse any wrong doing she has done and will most surely do.
CharminUltra
Member
Welp I'm convinced.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
It'll also be the 6th Presidential election since 1980 where the Democrat wins the popular vote--it's not immediately clear why 24 years is a better cutoff period than 36 years except that 24 years is the cutoff that maximizes the point you're making.
OneEightZero
aka ThreeOneFour
Even master trolls mess up every once and a while.
shinra-bansho
Member
She needs zero percent. She's the presumptive nominee.
Is this some sort of hypocrisy performance art.
User 85168
Banned
@ForecasterEnten 5m5 minutes ago
Clinton will clinch a majority of PLEDGED delegates tmmw in California. She needs just 31% of all delegates up tmmw to clinch.
Clinton will clinch a majority of PLEDGED delegates tmmw in California. She needs just 31% of all delegates up tmmw to clinch.
I use that since the other comparable segment in time was from 1968 to 1992 - Republican domination that took extraordinary circumstances in order to hand Democrats the Presidency (Carter benefiting from Watergate in '76).
But it is arbitrary. 1992 seems, in retrospect, like the year where the Dems "picked the lock" on the Electoral College that the GOP seemed to have. It has me wondering when the GOP will finally feel enough pressure to undergo its own Third Way-like adjustment period in order to begin picking apart the Dems' advantage.
Wow. And that author claims to be a professor. Either the standards for PhDs have dropped greatly, or the guy's an adjunct professor that hasn't seen the inside of a math textbook since the 9th grade.
Between this and the 'Hillary can't actually claim she's the nominee until the convention, history and convention be damned' meme, the delusion and denial among Bernie's most zealous supporters continues to reach ever loftier heights.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
Is it denial to believe she will be indicted? I mean this as a serious question. Because it seems likely right now.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Reagan was a cocaine fueled fluke.
darkside31337
Tomodachi wa Mahou
Because there was a huge shift in demographics in major states like California in the 80s. It was a state that had less than 40% for democrats in 1980 and has increased to 60% now. The rise of California as a strong blue state is almost entirely based on demographics with the rise of non-white voters in the state basically going at the same exact rate as the rise of the democratic party.
The Electoral College is always going to be stacked against the GOP until they change the voters they are courting.
its cute, thats for sure
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
The American people are sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails.
shinra-bansho
Member
Is it denial to believe she'll be crushed by a grand piano tomorrow. I mean this as a serious question. Because that's about as likely.
What seems likely? An indictment? Unless there's been a change in the last 24 hours that I haven't seen, I haven't heard about the Feds making the slightest move in that direction.
IdreamofHIME
Member
We need some Bernie math denial.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Canada doesn't have a majority requirement, so a plurality is enough to win. This isn't how the US works, specifically according to the Constitution.
Team Alucard
Banned
After the OIG report, not at all. We can just hope that the FBI wraps up their investigation before the convention. Hillary being indicted prior to the convention is no big deal as it gives her a chance to step aside smoothly, but her being indicted in September or October would be pretty disastrous for the Democratic Party.
And_Gignac
Member
I am aware of the cult-like following Sanders has inspired. But if you are talking about my personal behavior, I would say nah, I have been critical of Sanders plenty of times. He is a career politician, after all.
I am mostly talking about Clinton supporters who have become unbearably defensive of Hilly and have put her into a pedestal of Holy-Motherness only similar to unironic Pop-GAF stanning.
I hope such behavior becomes less present once Sanders is no longer an ideological shadow.
Yes.
Honestly, I tend to think that Obama would be able to hear rumblings if anything serious was coming down the line from the FBI. His actions are not the actions of a man who thinks there'll be any sort of problem in this arena.
DietRob
i've been begging for over 5 years.
Look up a few posts the article with math gymnastics has been quoted multiple times.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
That's disingenuous.
In this case, 24 years would seem to be a much better cutoff period if the point is to examine when an important realignment took place. Why would someone try to show when a realignment occurred by including a long stretch of time before the realignment happened? That would just muddy the statistical waters and make it look like a realignment never actually happened, when in fact there may have been a real shift beginning in 1992 at the presidential level.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Sounds like you're leaving free money on the table by not betting on her being indicted. And clearly if she's indicted, Bernie will be the nominee, so you're also leaving free money on the table by not placing money on him becoming the nominee. This money could really help the Bernie 2016 presidential election campaign, so frankly you're not doing your part for the revolution.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
See above.
Holy shit.
Remember ME, Clinton? When I killed your campaign, I talked JUST... LIKE... THIS!
*sproing*
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Now that's just mean Stumpy.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Can we get a rundown on the odds for her VP pick?
Like, the top 5 possibilities ranked in order?
Like, the top 5 possibilities ranked in order?
shinra-bansho
Member
Is it denial to believe she'll be abducted by a aliens tomorrow. I mean this as a serious question. Because that's about as likely.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The choice of "popular vote" (when popular vote isn't what wins the election insofar as it is divergent from the electoral vote and insofar as it's not then why not use the electoral vote) the number of times won since the exact point where that ratio looks the highest struck me as a pretty arbitrary way to prop up the point. It seemed like the same kind of conclusion -> evidence rather than evidence -> conclusion reasoning that I've seen a lot in discussions of the election.
If the broader point is that over time the Democratic tent has gotten progressively larger, particularly as the country has gotten more non-white, to the point that we now have a structural bifurcation where Democrats have a huge advantage in the presidential election even though lower turnout rates among marginal Democratic supporters hurt them in the house (which, yes, is also districted in a way that breaks against them) then, sure, but also duh.
HUELEN10
Member
1. Warren (ugh)
2. Martin O Malley (average pick)
3. Julian Castro (think covering all your demographics with one ticket)
4. Webb (maybe, I just have a gut feeling)
5. Amy Klobuchar (average pick)
1. Tim Kaine (the boring safe pick, fluent Spanish, doesn't lose a Senate seat, depends on post-Sanders polling)
2. Elizabeth Warren (the one Harry Reid is lobbying for and the way to get the left wing of the party)
3. Tom Perez (Sec of Labor, good economic health, fluent Spanish)
4. Sherrod Brown (progressive like Warren, well liked in swing state Ohio)
5. Julian Castro (young, Hispanic, DNC speech, Hillary thinks he's the future of the party)
And_Gignac
Member
More the former. And yet...
I blame you all for the emergence of popligaf.
Nnnnn you are right. My first Bernie posts were a MESS.
Tom Perez was on Ezra Klein's podcast last week and was clearly running for VP
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked