Support NeoGAF

[theprodigy]

So, you guys prefer the Republican or Democratic primary process? (like, the actual rules)

 

[Makai]

So, you guys prefer the Republican or Democratic primary process? (like, the actual rules)

Republican primary is more democratic.

 

[daedalius]

You know a bunch of weird Catholics.

Well, this is Kansas I guess?

I try to stay away if possible.


Also, this Art of the Deal movie by Funny or Die with Johnny Depp playing Trump seems pretty amazing so far! http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ad...-deal-movie?_cc=__d___&_ccid=aedcf86318b06156

 

[HylianTom]

Republican primary is more democratic.

Agree. I don't care for superdelegates or arcane caucus arrangements.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Except wait, I must be misremembering history. Kennedy can't possibly have been elected because polls at the time consistently found Americans wouldn't vote for a Catholic. Apologies, y'all.

So now Sanders is the new JFK? Because as near as I can tell the number of Catholics elected in the 50 years since then is still 0. Yesterday Sanders became the first Jewish candidate to win a state in a primary, so hand-waving away the concerns that a borderline atheist can win the general is extraordinarily glib.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Someone with a higher favorability rating is going to do better in match ups with someone that doesn't have it has much. Ben Carson is slightly better or is as competitive when it comes to match ups with Clinton. It can also be the case that sometimes someone that isn't that well known, is going to have better favorability ratings .

According to Gallup( at the beginning at December ) Bernie does not have a higher familiar rating than Clinton. http://www.gallup.com/poll/187607/donald-trump-known-not-liked.aspx

My apologies, I actually misread this as "Bernie does not have a higher familiar rating than Clinton", rather than "Bernie does not have a higher familiar". You are quite right he has less familiarity.

However, I reject the idea this is responsible for his higher favourability ratings.

Here is the most recent Gallup tracker (released 2 days ago, next is in 5 days):
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polli...ng-shifts-presidential-candidates-images.aspx

It has Sanders at 67/10/23 Favourable/Unfavourable/Don't Know. Clinton was 71/24/5. Suppose that their Don't Know numbers become the same, so that 18% of people come to find out who Sanders is. Now suppose that 80% of those people (so, 14 percentage points worth) find Sanders unfavourable and only 20% favourable. The result is Sanders at 71/24/5 - or exactly the same as Clinton.

So, given this staggeringly unlikely outcome, Sanders would still be more favourable. People not knowing him is insufficient to explain the gap. In fact, if people who come to know him like him at the same rate as people who currently know him, he'd be at 83/12/5, or +71 - overwhelmingly ahead of Clinton. So, actually, Sanders' low profile is to Clinton's advantage!

I'm also just dubious as to how accurate Gallup's polling is anyway. I've not seen any other pollster give Sanders recognizability that low in some time.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Agree. I don't care for superdelegates or arcane caucus arrangements.

But Republicans have super-delegates, in roughly the same proportion as the Dems. Primary rules are much more about state preferences that what the national party wants.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So now Sanders is the new JFK? Because as near as I can tell the number of Catholics elected in the 50 years since then is still 0. Yesterday Sanders became the first Jewish candidate to win a state in a primary, so hand-waving away the concerns the a borderline atheist can win the general is extraordinarily glib.

I mean, that's only 8 presidents. It's not a large sample size. The Vice President is Catholic right now.

 

[User 463088]

Most evangelicals believe in verbal plenary inspiration. That is, every single word is literally 100% the word of God, and nothing in the Bible is symbolic at all. Everything has to be taken at literal face value. IA lot of southern evangelicals are also King James 1611 only Bible people. They hate any of the translations based off the works of Wescott and Hort. If it's not from the Textus Receptus then it's pure shit. Well, I say "they" most of them have no idea why they supposedly dislike any translation that wasn't finished in the 1600s.....

Sorry, I know way too much about the bible for an atheist. I went to a private christian school my entire life. I used to be in charge of the preaching and teaching club.

Ya.

Sorry.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Republican primary is more democratic.

Eh. Yes and no - definitely no for the Winner Takes All states. The first few states are more accommodating for underdogs, but after that it punishes them. Democratic side treats them roughly the same the whole way through. The Democrats have superdelegates in a way unmatched by the Republican side, but superdelegates haven't been decisive in picking a candidate in the modern primary era, they always followed the popular vote.

Really, both systems suck. I think I'd very mildly prefer the Republican side just because the Democrats' caucuses are abominable.

 

[HylianTom]

But Republicans have super-delegates, in roughly the same proportion as the Dems. Primary rules are much more about state preferences that what the national party wants.

That's right - with the focus on the Republican side, I keep forgetting this.

 

[NeoXChaos]

But Republicans have super-delegates, in roughly the same proportion as the Dems. Primary rules are much more about state preferences that what the national party wants.

hence closed and open primaries/caucuses

 

[Black Republican]

So, you guys prefer the Republican or Democratic primary process? (like, the actual rules)

GOP no doubt

Democrats enjoy all sorts of fuckery for some reason

 

[ivysaur12]

Agree. I don't care for superdelegates or arcane caucus arrangements.

Me neither. Part of me is fearful that if Sanders does win 50+1 of the popular vote, Clinton could still win through superdelegates. I don't think that will happen, but I definitely wouldn't put it past the party leadership to try.

Democratic caucuses are so dumb. SO DUMB.

 

[dramatis]

This is why a Sanders nomination is so vital, though. Republican numbers are up because independents (not registered independents, self-identified independents, the two are different) have been overwhelmingly drawn into the Republicans. Trump and Cruz between them have politicized a group that didn't have much of a voice in American politics. I know it makes no sense to people in PoliGAF, but Sanders also competes for that group. They know the world is wrong and want someone to fix it. Clinton does appallingly among self-identified independents. You would be ceding a significant proportion of the new electorate to the Republicans.

I don't think so.

Right now we have two states that have gone—both predominantly white, with one being ridiculously evangelical. Bernie, presumably, is not competing for the crazy Republican vote that agrees with Trump that Muslims should be banned. That bloc of white people are not and will not change to Bernie because their one issue is irrational. Fighting over the white vote with Republicans is a futile quest.

In comparison, seizing the growing minority vote or increasing youth turnout are much better long-term strategies. Ideally both can be combined to make something really impressive, but ironically the two are split between Hillary and Bernie.

But Bernie's long term strategy is poor. He's encouraging the youth vote, the future vote, to sneer at the institutions and spurn the system when they fail. They're voting for a hero; they refuse to vote for "another run of the mill politician", and yet those run of the mill politicians are the votes in Congress that effect real change!

He is making the Democratic party's position weaker at a time where they can capitalize on the weaknesses of the Republican party. A Bernie nomination is not vital. It is not a guarantor of defeating the Republicans; people speak as though Hillary is one scandal away from losing the presidency, but of course they forget that anybody is, Bernie is not exempt. It is not a guarantor of better downticket performance; the positions Bernie espouses are likely to harm in the contested districts where Republicans are already incumbent, because the nature of those districts is conservative.

It is not a guarantor of midterm victory. For all the fervor of political revolution, Bernie couldn't increase turnout to Obama levels in two of the whitest states, and you're saying he's vital? It's clear the additional voters weren't coming out to vote for Bernie Sanders, they were there to embrace the abomination. Those are not voters he can court.

Nay, if anything Bernie is an average to weak candidate for the general election. He has no easy historic appeal. His is not a presidency destined for accomplishment and greatness. His campaign is poorly managed. He isn't half as entertaining as Donald Trump, he isn't as charismatic as Obama, and he lacks the fortitude of Hillary.

We'll see who is 'vital' at the end of the nomination process, Crab.

 

[RustyNails]

Heading in to Nevada: Sanders has voted against Immigration reform bill and voted against more immigrant visas.

Hillary has much better immigration reform stances even sponsoring bills to fund social services for immigrants including children under medicaid. Voted for immigration reform and supports increasing the immigration cap.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

I mean, that's only 8 presidents. It's not a large sample size. The Vice President is Catholic right now.

8 is still more than 1. All of which ignores the important thing that religion is very important to minority groups. 75% of blacks in the US describe religion as very important in their daily lives. To just assert that finding out that Sanders' may or not may not believe in God will not impact their view of him stretches credulity.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/racial-and-ethnic-composition/

 

[Coriolanus]

Anderson: "Mr. Sanders, 83% of the American population believes the Bible is the Word of God. What do you say to those Americans, and your opponent on the Republican ticket, that feel you don't hold the same beliefs in God?"

Sanders: "Anderson, I don't begrudge anyone what they want to believe. Believe it! Do what you will. In fact, I think the Bible has a great deal to teach us about modern issues. When those Pharaohs were hoarding all that treasure and wealth and beating on the downtrodden Jews, what did the Jews do Anderson? What did they do? Revolution Anderson . . . REVOLUTION! Maybe with a little help from God . . . maybe not . . . but it was a revolution Anderson . . . over income inequality. Now about those bankers in Egypt . . ."

He did kinda go out and gave a speech trying to assure people he wasn't a tool of the Pope.

Spoiler

He was actually a tool of the Jewish Bankers who actually controlled the Capitalist system and was assassinated by a patsy set up by those same bankers (who were Jewish) right when he was about to undermine Communism for good, thankfully LBJ was more amenable to harming the country (on orders of the bankers, who were Jewish) through the Great Society to let the Soviets catch up. On the orders of the bankers. The Jewish ones.

Man, and i thought the high point of this thread woulda been the brief foray into turkish politics. Kudos to both of you good sirs.

And now i realize i gotta kill someone in my xcom team to make room for a benji

dramatis became an op af psi, fwiw. still alive and kicking.

Nay, if anything Bernie is an average to weak candidate for the general election. He has no easy historic appeal. His is not a presidency destined for accomplishment and greatness. His campaign is poorly managed. He isn't half as entertaining as Donald Trump, he isn't as charismatic as Obama, and he lacks the fortitude of Hillary.

Nay, if anything, Hillary is an average to weak candidate for the general election. She has a history tainted by scandals. Hers is not a presidency destined for accomplishment and greatness. Her campaign is poorly managed. She isn't half as entertaining as Donald Trump, she isn't as charismatic as Obama, and she lacks the fortitude of an old jewish socialist going against the candidate that benefits from the most ridiculously stacked deck in recent history.

I mean. You know that was too heavy on the drama when you wrote it, mate.

 

[Makai]

Rubio got zero delegates despite breaking the 10% threshold.

 

[benjipwns]

So now Sanders is the new JFK? Because as near as I can tell the number of Catholics elected in the 50 years since then is still 0.

And the number of Catholics or Jews on the Supreme Court is...

They knew better than bothering with the Presidency.

 

[maabus1999]

I don't think so.

Right now we have two states that have gone—both predominantly white, with one being ridiculously evangelical. Bernie, presumably, is not competing for the crazy Republican vote that agrees with Trump that Muslims should be banned. That bloc of white people are not and will not change to Bernie because their one issue is irrational. Fighting over the white vote with Republicans is a futile quest.

In comparison, seizing the growing minority vote or increasing youth turnout are much better long-term strategies. Ideally both can be combined to make something really impressive, but ironically the two are split between Hillary and Bernie.

But Bernie's long term strategy is poor. He's encouraging the youth vote, the future vote, to sneer at the institutions and spurn the system when they fail. They're voting for a hero; they refuse to vote for "another run of the mill politician", and yet those run of the mill politicians are the votes in Congress that effect real change!

He is making the Democratic party's position weaker at a time where they can capitalize on the weaknesses of the Republican party. A Bernie nomination is not vital. It is not a guarantor of defeating the Republicans; people speak as though Hillary is one scandal away from losing the presidency, but of course they forget that anybody is, Bernie is not exempt. It is not a guarantor of better downticket performance; the positions Bernie espouses are likely to harm in the contested districts where Republicans are already incumbent, because the nature of those districts is conservative.

It is not a guarantor of midterm victory. For all the fervor of political revolution, Bernie couldn't increase turnout to Obama levels in two of the whitest states, and you're saying he's vital? It's clear the additional voters weren't coming out to vote for Bernie Sanders, they were there to embrace the abomination. Those are not voters he can court.

Nay, if anything Bernie is an average to weak candidate for the general election. He has no easy historic appeal. His is not a presidency destined for accomplishment and greatness. His campaign is poorly managed. He isn't half as entertaining as Donald Trump, he isn't as charismatic as Obama, and he lacks the fortitude of Hillary.

We'll see who is 'vital' at the end of the nomination process, Crab.

Plus his age will be a factor, like it or not.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Eh. Yes and no - definitely no for the Winner Takes All states. The first few states are more accommodating for underdogs, but after that it punishes them. Democratic side treats them roughly the same the whole way through. The Democrats have superdelegates in a way unmatched by the Republican side, but superdelegates haven't been decisive in picking a candidate in the modern primary era, they always followed the popular vote.

Really, both systems suck. I think I'd very mildly prefer the Republican side just because the Democrats' caucuses are abominable.

I'm pretty sure Republicans actually have more superdelegates by percentage, they have a lower number because the Republican convention uses far fewer delegates. Unless there's significant differences with regard to how superdelegates are pledged they have a pretty similar weight.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I don't think so.

Right now we have two states that have gone—both predominantly white, with one being ridiculously evangelical. Bernie, presumably, is not competing for the crazy Republican vote that agrees with Trump that Muslims should be banned. That bloc of white people are not and will not change to Bernie because their one issue is irrational. Fighting over the white vote with Republicans is a futile quest.

In comparison, seizing the growing minority vote or increasing youth turnout are much better long-term strategies. Ideally both can be combined to make something really impressive, but ironically the two are split between Hillary and Bernie.

But Bernie's long term strategy is poor. He's encouraging the youth vote, the future vote, to sneer at the institutions and spurn the system when they fail. They're voting for a hero; they refuse to vote for "another run of the mill politician", and yet those run of the mill politicians are the votes in Congress that effect real change!

He is making the Democratic party's position weaker at a time where they can capitalize on the weaknesses of the Republican party. A Bernie nomination is not vital. It is not a guarantor of defeating the Republicans; people speak as though Hillary is one scandal away from losing the presidency, but of course they forget that anybody is, Bernie is not exempt. It is not a guarantor of better downticket performance; the positions Bernie espouses are likely to harm in the contested districts where Republicans are already incumbent, because the nature of those districts is conservative.

It is not a guarantor of midterm victory. For all the fervor of political revolution, Bernie couldn't increase turnout to Obama levels in two of the whitest states, and you're saying he's vital? It's clear the additional voters weren't coming out to vote for Bernie Sanders, they were there to embrace the abomination. Those are not voters he can court.

Nay, if anything Bernie is an average to weak candidate for the general election. He has no easy historic appeal. His is not a presidency destined for accomplishment and greatness. His campaign is poorly managed. He isn't half as entertaining as Donald Trump, he isn't as charismatic as Obama, and he lacks the fortitude of Hillary.

We'll see who is 'vital' at the end of the nomination process, Crab.

It sounds like you're saying institutions and systems should not be sneered at even when they fail. If a party or system continuously fails you then its completely rational to desire it to change or if that can't be achieved to desire its destruction.

 

[Abinash117]

My apologies, I actually misread this as "Bernie does not have a higher familiar rating than Clinton", rather than "Bernie does not have a higher familiar". You are quite right he has less familiarity.

However, I reject the idea this is responsible for his higher favourability ratings.

Here is the most recent Gallup tracker (released 2 days ago, next is in 5 days):
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polli...ng-shifts-presidential-candidates-images.aspx

It has Sanders at 67/10/23 Favourable/Unfavourable/Don't Know. Clinton was 71/24/5. Suppose that their Don't Know numbers become the same, so that 18% of people come to find out who Sanders is. Now suppose that 80% of those people (so, 14 percentage points worth) find Sanders unfavourable and only 20% favourable. The result is Sanders at 71/24/5 - or exactly the same as Clinton.

So, given this staggeringly unlikely outcome, Sanders would still be more favourable. People not knowing him is insufficient to explain the gap. In fact, if people who come to know him like him at the same rate as people who currently know him, he'd be at 83/12/5, or +71 - overwhelmingly ahead of Clinton. So, actually, Sanders' low profile is to Clinton's advantage!

I'm also just dubious as to how accurate Gallup's polling is anyway. I've not seen any other pollster give Sanders recognizability that low in some time.

I wasn't insinuating anything out of the data. I'm just stating the fact from the current data and personally I could care less if Bernie is more favorable than Hillary
( concerning that it wasn't what I was talking about anyway) , I don't have much against him.

 

[theprodigy]

Let's see how many superdelegate equivalents there actually are on the Republican side...

states that actually have unpledged delegates (3 for each one listed, i.e. the party leaders):
New Hampshire
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Virginia(?)
Wyoming
Kentucky
Louisiana
Puerto Rico
Hawaii
Mississippi
Guam
Missouri
North Carolina
American Samoa
New York
Connecticut
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Indiana
Nebraska
West Virginia
Oregon
Washington
California
New Mexico
South Dakota

30 states x 3 per state = 90 total

There are 2472 delegates, so 90/2472=3.64%, yeah I'm pretty sure the Democrats have a higher percentage.

I might have missed a category, but Democrats have around 15%, so yeah...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm pretty sure Republicans actually have more superdelegates by percentage, they have a lower number because the Republican convention uses far fewer delegates. Unless there's significant differences with regard to how superdelegates are pledged they have a pretty similar weight.

I count 168 of 2470 for the Republicans and 747 of 5083 for the Dems? Is my source wrong? There's 3 for each state and territory that votes, so 3*56 = 168.

also, dramatis, I'm sure that post sounded great in your head when you wrote it, but my mental impression was of a Rubiobot hashing out canned lines.

 

[ivysaur12]

also, dramatis, I'm sure that post sounded great in your head when you wrote it, but my mental impression was of a Rubiobot hashing out canned lines.

?

 

[NeoXChaos]

Updated Thread Assignments

Nevada Caucuses, South Carolina Primary- Wilsongt, NeoXChaos
Super Tuesday-b-dubs
Super Tuesday Part 2- NeoXChoas

*After Super Tuesday PoliGAF handles the rest of the primaries.

*Veepstakes is going to be in PoliGAF

2016 Republican National Convention-b-dubs
2016 Democratic National Convention- NeoXChaos

1st Presidential Debate-b-dubs
Vice Presidential Debate-Ebay Huckster
2nd Presidential Debate-kingkitty
3rd Presidential Debate-

General Election 2016-Aaron Strife

Republican Debates
10 - Feb 26 CNN - Makai
11 - March 3 Fox News - Makai
12 - March 10 CNN - Makai

Democratic Debates
7 March 6-kingkitty
8 March 9 Univision/Washington Post NeoXChaos
9 April-kingkitty
10 May-NeoXChaos

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Rubio got zero delegates despite breaking the 10% threshold.

Wha? Does it need to be 10% in both districts, not just state-wide? At 10.5%, he should have been guaranteed at least 1 delegate from the at-larges. Very confused.

EDIT: Google is telling me he got 3, Makai; that definitely accords with what I thought. Are you sure?

 

[Makai]

Wha? Does it need to be 10% in both districts, not just state-wide? At 10.5%, he should have been guaranteed at least 1 delegate from the at-larges. Very confused.

I was wrong. Google just updated their delegate tracker.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I was wrong. Google just updated their delegate tracker.

Aww, I'm so disappointed now. Delegate-less Rubio would have been glorious. ;_;

 

[Veritigo_X]

Damn, I was hoping there was some weird threshold rule we overlooked. Oh well. The 5th place finish is glorious enough.

 

[theprodigy]

Now wait just a minute...doesn't New Hampshire only have 20 delegates before adding the 3 unpledged party members?

 

[Elaugaufein]

I count 168 of 2470 for the Republicans and 747 of 5083 for the Dems? Is my source wrong? There's 3 for each state and territory that votes, so 3*56 = 168.

also, dramatis, I'm sure that post sounded great in your head when you wrote it, but my mental impression was of a Rubiobot hashing out canned lines.

Infoplease says 437 total of which 168 are RNC members.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/superdelegates.html

 

[Cesare Borgia]

How much does Sanders want to do well in SC? Now is the perfect opportunity to bring up some things like Clinton's horrible record on criminal justice, and perhaps even (indirectly) send out some fliers reminding people of the disrespect they showed Obama during the 08 contest there.

 

[Gotchaye]

Most evangelicals believe in verbal plenary inspiration. That is, every single word is literally 100% the word of God, and nothing in the Bible is symbolic at all. Everything has to be taken at literal face value. IA lot of southern evangelicals are also King James 1611 only Bible people. They hate any of the translations based off the works of Wescott and Hort. If it's not from the Textus Receptus then it's pure shit. Well, I say "they" most of them have no idea why they supposedly dislike any translation that wasn't finished in the 1600s....

I don't think this is true. Mainstream evangelicalism discourages examination of the Bible but it does so in a really weird way. Many evangelicals will tell you that the Bible is literally true in every particular but they don't actually interpret it like this - it's just that they're committed to the Bible being simple and easy to understand such that good faith disagreement isn't possible.

In practice there are official interpretations (which may vary a bit from subculture to subculture) which are asserted to be the clear meaning of the text, backed up in some cases by cherry-picking passages and in others by appealing to a complicated illusion of scholarship which nobody is ever actually examining critically (beliefs about the rapture feature a lot of this). But the rapture stuff is a good example of one way the Bible isn't taken to be literally true - many modern evangelicals take parts of the Bible that were literally about Rome and Jews and the Temple and interpret them as predicting something which is yet to happen. These are people who know what the Bible means and know that it's unambiguous, and that influences how they go about interpreting the actual text.

 

[B-Dubs]

How much does Sanders want to do well in SC? Now is the perfect opportunity to bring up some things like Clinton's horrible record on criminal justice, and perhaps even (indirectly) send out some fliers reminding people of the disrespect they showed Obama during the 08 contest there.

The problem is if they start doing that then it's a signal that the Clintons can take the gloves off and start unloading, and they've got bigger guns. They'll start with Bernie calling for Obama to be primaried in 2012 and go from there.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Most evangelicals believe in verbal plenary inspiration. That is, every single word is literally 100% the word of God, and nothing in the Bible is symbolic at all. Everything has to be taken at literal face value. IA lot of southern evangelicals are also King James 1611 only Bible people. They hate any of the translations based off the works of Wescott and Hort. If it's not from the Textus Receptus then it's pure shit. Well, I say "they" most of them have no idea why they supposedly dislike any translation that wasn't finished in the 1600s.....

Sorry, I know way too much about the bible for an atheist. I went to a private christian school my entire life. I used to be in charge of the preaching and teaching club.

Ya.

Sorry.

Adam.. I would pay to see you give a sermon.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Infoplease says 437 total of which 168 are RNC members.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/superdelegates.html

I don't think that source is right? There are 439 (not 437) bonus delegates, but bonus delegates aren't the same as the Democratic superdelegates and can't vote freely; they go to the popular winner of their state. I'm fairly sure the only the Republican party delegates can vote freely; which is the 168.

 

[Coriolanus]

The problem is if they start doing that then it's a signal that the Clintons can take the gloves off and start unloading, and they've got bigger guns. They'll start with Bernie calling for Obama to be primaried in 2012 and go from there.

Nah, in the bigger guns criteria, the mere threat of bernie ever going "yknow what, fuckit, independent run", however grotesquely unlikely it may be, is enough to ensure that the Clintons can never risk going full scorched earth on his ol' ass. Like it or not, he holds the ability to do far more damage to them than they could ever hope to do to him.

Good thing he has Morals*.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I don't think that source is right? There are 439 (not 437) bonus delegates, but bonus delegates aren't the same as the Democratic superdelegates and can't vote freely; they go to the popular winner of their state. I'm fairly sure the only the Republican party delegates can vote freely; which is the 168.

The 437 includes the 168 so that'd be 269 extra not 439. You may still be correct about it being wrong though since it says nothing about where those extra 269 come from.

 

[B-Dubs]

Nah, in the bigger guns criteria, the mere threat of bernie ever going "yknow what, fuckit, independent run", however grotesquely unlikely it may be, is enough to ensure that the Clintons can never risk going full scorched earth on his ol' ass. Like it or not, he holds the ability to do far more damage to them than they could ever hope to do to him.

Good thing he has Morals*.

If he ever did that it means he never really cared about his issues and was no better than Trump in the first place, which is why he ruled it out from the get go.

Keep in mind, I never said they'd go scorched earth. Right now they've barely even given him love taps, there's a lot of space between that and scorched earth.

 

[benjipwns]

How much does Sanders want to do well in SC? Now is the perfect opportunity to bring up some things like Clinton's horrible record on criminal justice, and perhaps even (indirectly) send out some fliers reminding people of the disrespect they showed Obama during the 08 contest there.

Sanders is running a positive and hopeful campaign he wouldn't stoop to Clintonian tactics.

 

[GregLombardi]

Plus his age will be a factor, like it or not.

He looked like he was dying last night with just a cold. These are my concerns too.

I love Bernie, I lived in his state for a long time, I just think he's a tall order and a strategically poor choice.

 

[benjipwns]

If he ever did that it means he never really cared about his issues

Or he realized that the sinking ship of the Democratic Clintoncrap Party is the last place that real social justice for the working class is wanted.

 

[A Human Becoming]

But Republicans have super-delegates, in roughly the same proportion as the Dems. Primary rules are much more about state preferences that what the national party wants.

Democrats have roughly 6% more super delegates than Republicans. That is a significant difference, especially since Democrats have more delegates total. More unpledged delegates means more can change their mind increasing their importance.

 

[Coriolanus]

If he ever did that it means he never really cared about his issues and was no better than Trump in the first place, which is why he ruled it out from the get go.

Keep in mind, I never said they'd go scorched earth. Right now they've barely even given him love taps, there's a lot of space between that and scorched earth.

Eh, not quite. End of the day he isn't a racist so he'd never be as bad as Trump. It would mean, however (if done after behaviour that he'd interpret as unfair), that 1. he'd be a grotesque asshole, yes, and 2. that democrats overplayed their hand.

I'm just mentioning scorched earth because you mentioned bigger guns. The love taps they giving him are being done indirectly with all the "he aint no democrat" crap precisely because can't antagonize the man too much, and, i suspect, because hills already has a perception of honesty problem.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The 437 includes the 168 so that'd be 269 extra not 439. You may still be correct about it being wrong though since it says nothing about where those extra 269 come from.

I don't think the 439 does include the 168? http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml says it doesn't, and they've got full citations for the full Republican Party Constitution you can read. Every state and territory gets 3 delegates per congressional district, 10 for the state itself, and then a top-up of bonus delegates for each state depending on certain criteria. Those bonus delegates are won in the same way as the state delegates. Only the party delegates (the 168) have a free vote, so they're 6.8% of the delegates. For the Democrats, that's 15.0%, so it seems to me like the Democrats are less democratic in that respect.

 

[B-Dubs]

Eh, not quite. End of the day he isn't a racist so he'd never be as bad as Trump. It would mean, however (if done after behaviour that he'd interpret as unfair), that 1. he'd be a grotesque asshole, yes, and 2. that democrats overplayed their hand.

I'm just mentioning scorched earth because you mentioned bigger guns. The love taps they giving him are being done indirectly with all the "he aint no democrat" crap precisely because can't antagonize the man too much.

I'm just saying that there's a huge gulf between what they're doing now and how hard they fought Obama, for example. There's room for them to raise their level a few times before they got that rough.

 

[Abinash117]

How much does Sanders want to do well in SC? Now is the perfect opportunity to bring up some things like Clinton's horrible record on criminal justice, and perhaps even (indirectly) send out some fliers reminding people of the disrespect they showed Obama during the 08 contest there.

As some people pointed it out in the NH thread I think, many older AAs lived through all of that, but still supported Bill Clinton when it came to his record . Crime exploded during that time so some were okay with Clinton's "tough on crime", but I'm sure plenty weren't. It probably wouldn't look be effective.