AP: Clinton clinches Democratic Nomination

Status
Not open for further replies.
This.

REf1r0m.jpg
Like the Pope, he builds bridges, and is apparently infallible.
 
It is not quite clinched, as the super delegates may still change their vote

Well yeah, they may. But that would make Sanders the ultimate establishment "we know better than the voters" candidate.
 
Don't know if this has been posted yet:

Alex WagnerVerified account
‏@alexwagner
Sanders aside, it's fairly remarkable that the Dems are nominating a woman after a black man, and the GOP is putting forth...Donald Trump.

lol.
 
That problematic mentality is why the US will only have a 2 party system for the forseeable future. We should not be shaming people for choosing to vote 3rd party

No, the first past the post system is why the US will have a 2 party system, since it naturally means that any group that doesn't form a large coalition won't be able to compete with those that do
 
That problematic mentality is why the US will only have a 2 party system for the forseeable future. We should not be shaming people for choosing to vote 3rd party

US has a two party system because of the way our electoral system is outlined in the constitution. There is no way to make a third party viable without changing the constitution.
 
That problematic mentality is why the US will only have a 2 party system for the forseeable future. We should not be shaming people for choosing to vote 3rd party
There needs to be more reasonable people like you around in this nation.

Absolutely no shame in 3rd parties or write-ins.
 
When Hillary clinches the presumptive nomination for real for real tomorrow, I hope the narrative goes to Clinton vs Trump. Bernie can do what he wants I guess and wait until the convention to concede, but he hopefully starts getting even more ignored by the media.

Could be directing people to support down ticket races and donating towards that, but instead he keeps collecting money for a lost cause.
 
Holy Christ, the r/Sanders is like watching the Hindenburg crash. And they want it to crash into the entirety of the Democratic party and level it forever because they lost.
 
That problematic mentality is why the US will only have a 2 party system for the forseeable future. We should not be shaming people for choosing to vote 3rd party

Yes we should, because structurally a third party isn't, nor has ever been viable.

Either constituencies rise (tea party) or one of the major parties adopts / co-optes platforms (Civil Rights).

Leaving third parties mostly an ego trip by fringe groups that have no plan to govern or build governering constituencies.
 
Texas had a weird primary setup in 2008; the final stage of the primary, the state convention, was on June 7th. The point is not that the California primary is the same thing as the Texas state convention, the point is that the AP called the race when the delegate standings, including the superdelegates, came to the point that one candidate had won mathematically. Even though other people had yet to express their opinions and other delegates remained unpledged. And that's OK.
Right, I don't think the AP should've called it that early in 2008 either. But two-thirds of the pledged delegates being determined is kind of a big difference compared to zero in California in 2016. I think calling it a day before the CA primary could affect turnout. Which isn't even in the Democratic party's best interests for down-ballot races because of the top-two system. I can't believe people are defending this.
 
With that attitude it is

Ross Perot had 19% of the popular vote in 1992. We were so close to heading in the right direction :(

And then the third party supporters failed to vote in local elections for their third party candidates (in any meaningful way).

Notice how the Tea Party did the exact opposite for a good part of their rise.

Don't egg them on, they could vote for Trump if things don't go their way, and that's a scary thought.

Cool cool cool.
 
You're so weird, HUELEN

Didn't you variably support Trump and Bernie?

I like both Sanders and Trump, and will vote for one of them this general election. It could be Sanders, it could be Trump, I don't know. This thread isn't about any one person or any one vote though, so please if you need to ask, ask in a generalized thread or a PM.
 
Don't egg them on, they could vote for Trump if things don't go their way, and that's a scary thought.

At least they have an excuse, as opposed to your "I'm peculiar" nature.

I like both Sanders and Trump, and will vote for one of them this general election. It could be Sanders, it could be Trump, I don't know. This thread isn't about any one person or any one vote though, so please if you need to ask, ask in a generalized thread or a PM.

You just said voting for Trump was a scary thought.

But you'll probably peace out like you do in other topics.
 
With that attitude it is

Ross Perot had 19% of the popular vote in 1992. We were so close to heading in the right direction :(

No by mathematical rules, a FPTP voting system inevitably trends towards two parties. Until that is changed there will be no viable third parties in America. And that won't change.
 
I like both Sanders and Trump, and will vote for one of them this general election. It could be Sanders, it could be Trump, I don't know. This thread isn't about any one person or any one vote though, so please if you need to ask, ask in a generalized thread or a PM.

But did you not just say it would be a scary thought if one eggs them on and they vote for Trump?

You don't make any sense at all.
 
No by mathematical rules, a FPTP voting system inevitably trends towards two parties. Until that is changed there will be no viable third parties in America. And that won't change.

It's akin to players walking up to a tug-of-war contest and refusing to join a side; instead, they opt to jerk-off on the sidelines.

Sure, you're pulling on something.. but you're relinquishing your voice on the eventual outcome.
 
Yes, I'm aware. Just pointing out that today or tomorrow she needed the supers to put her over the top. Just like Obama eight years ago.
I don't know why I tried to correct you.

I see you in PoliGAF all the time. I know you ain't dumb.

I'll just go sit in the corner while I think of where I went wrong.
 
With that attitude it is

Ross Perot had 19% of the popular vote in 1992. We were so close to heading in the right direction :(

Perot proves his point, not yours. All Ross did was leech votes from Bush, setting up the huge Clinton win.

Learn about First Past the Post. It's why third parties can't work.
 
With that attitude it is

Ross Perot had 19% of the popular vote in 1992. We were so close to heading in the right direction :(

Perot cost Bush a second term and handed the Whitehouse to a young, little know Democrat.

Just like Nader in 2000, the only thing a third party can do is split the vote of the person closest to them and ensure their opposition gets the elective office.

As said, an ego trip. One step forward, two steps back, and back to whining ...
 
It's akin to players walking up to a tug-of-war contest and refusing to join a side; instead, they opt to jerk-off on the sidelines.

Sure, you're pulling on something.. but you're relinquishing your voice on the eventual outcome.

I wish I had that skill with analogies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom