You mean like convincing super delegates to vote for you?
AP: Clinton clinches Democratic Nomination
- Thread starter Macho Madness
- Start date
- Status
You mean like convincing super delegates to vote for you?
They won't go against the will of the people.
Like the Pope, he builds bridges, and is apparently infallible.This.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Well yeah, they may. But that would make Sanders the ultimate establishment "we know better than the voters" candidate.
shinra-bansho
Member
She'll still be short of 2,383 after all the voting is done by probably a couple hundred.
GutsOfThor
Member
Don't know if this has been posted yet:
lol.
lol.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
That's technically the number you have to hit with Supers though.
She'll be well passed the pledged delegate majority tomorrow night.
Heavy_D206
Member
Good for Hillary and the democrats, but I'll be sticking to my Libertarian ideals.
Aaronrules380
Member
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
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.
Who will you be supporting?
Three million reasons
HUELEN10
Member
There needs to be more reasonable people like you around in this nation.
Absolutely no shame in 3rd parties or write-ins.
There's a clear path to victory (tm)
Aaronrules380
Member
you're right, Bernie is trying to twist the system in an undemocratic direction for his own personal gain
Nope, a third party is scientifically nonviable in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Effect_on_political_parties
Already Torn
Banned
I think the reason it's clinched is because they asked the superdelegates who they're voting for
GoldenEye 007
Member
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.
Could be directing people to support down ticket races and donating towards that, but instead he keeps collecting money for a lost cause.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
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.
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.
GutsOfThor
Member
Good thing they are a small group who do not have much weight to do jack shit.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
No, THIS is why we will continue to have a 2 party system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
It's self interest.
shinra-bansho
Member
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.
HUELEN10
Member
Don't egg them on, they could vote for Trump if things don't go their way, and that's a scary thought.
DR2K
Banned
It can happen. Bern will be felt.
perfectchaos007
Member
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
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.
Already Torn
Banned
"The DNC will rue the day they gave into corruption once they see how many down votes we'll give them"
Thought you were voting for Trump if Bernie lost.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
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
Are you really arguing against science?
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.
Cool cool cool.
sturgboski
Member
Can you blame them when that is what Sanders and his surrogates are basically pushing.
HUELEN10
Member
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.
TheSpoiler
Member
At least they have an excuse, as opposed to your "I'm peculiar" nature.
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.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Melkezadek
Member
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.
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.
eBay Huckster
Member
oh THAT'S the reagan son they were talking about
that's considerably more notable than if ron was making those comments
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Holy shit.
Trump has lost the Bush's and the Reagans. Republicans cannot invoke Reagan anymore.
Here are some highlights from the party convention of the third largest political party in America.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8cErokGFs
Thunder Monkey
Banned
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.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
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.
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
Isn't that their exact purpose? To ensure "the people" don't vote in a Trump?
OneEightZero
aka ThreeOneFour
Shamful ≠ Viable
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 ...
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I wish I had that skill with analogies.
Reagan sighed as he drew his katana...
- Status