• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kyosaiga

Banned
I think it is telling that many Bernie supporters are whining about Superdelegates over the last few months. It indicates that they were completely uninformed about the democratic primary system until they read about the "anti-democratic Superdelegate" system on Reddit. I have been on r/politics for two years and I never saw these threads about how evil and Undemocratic it is until recently. If they had a problem with it, the course of action would have been to complain about it last year or hell 2014 would have been better.

Not that it would've done them good.

After seeing Trumps, Democrats will never, EVER EVER get rid of Superdelegates. In fact, they might even give them more sway.

Expect the GOP to enact some sort of super delegate situation after 2016
 
I'm not saying that.

If, on the other hand, Sanders ends up with more pledged delegates, expecting the current superdelegate situation to hold is stupid.

Sure, that's a debate we can have. However, the chances of Bernie being able to get a single delegate more than Hillary is incredibly unlikely. Obama, at his best, managed a lead of 122 delegates over Hillary. By Tuesday, assuming everything breaks Bernie's way, Hillary will have a 275-300 pledged delegate lead. He'd have to get at least 60% of the remaining delegates to get the edge in pledged delegates. However, the moment she has enough pledged and superdelegates, the race will be over.
 

kirblar

Member
Uhhhhhhhh, this is a terrible understanding of 1968 since violent protests sunk George Wallace.
And Nixon won the election?

The point is to let Trump's supporters be the violent scary ones everyone needs to be afraid of. You don't need to fight fire w/ fire and give your opponents the ability to paint both sides as "the same".
 

Grief.exe

Member
It's not absurd. It's a well documented slight on the Democratic Party. It is meant to be demeaning.

What am I missing with the term ass whooping?

This is so dumb. If you want to actually have a discussion and defend your points of you, do that. Don't hide behind "lol PoliGAF Hil hivemind". This is a discussion board. I responded to your points. If you have issues with what I posted, then tell me.

There isn't really much left to discuss, the use of the term 'ass whooping' is ultimately subjective.

I disagree with it's use in this context, multiple people in this thread find my disagreements to be absurd.

Bernie could have tried making nice with them, instead of throwing huge swaths of the Democratic Party under the bus.

She was working her way towards 500 pledged super delegates before the first debate, there's not much to be done on that front.

EDIT: Source didn't work.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/bernie-sanders.html

“I think we’ve got a good shot to win New York State, which is obviously a state with a lot of delegates,” he said, referring to Mrs. Clinton’s home base. “I think we have an excellent chance to win California.”

Mr. Sanders also said he would be stressing to voters that he could win battleground states in the general election in a way that Mrs. Clinton could not.

“She is getting a lot of delegates from states that most observers think, unfortunately but truly, that Democrats are not going to win,” Mr. Sanders said. “Bernie Sanders won in Michigan, which is a tossup state, won big in New Hampshire, which is a tossup state, won big in Colorado, which is a tossup state, won big in Minnesota, which is a tossup state. These are states the Democrats can and must win.”

Clinton 08 tried the same argument about their wins in OH, PA etc. Didn't matter in the end.
 

Makai

Member
Cmon, you guys are allowed to laugh at your candidate. He's standing right behind her, doing the grumpy face. Hillaryous.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
I can't believe Drumpf turned the protests into a huge plus for himself, while making everyone else look bad.
Dude knows how to create a narrative.

So Trump is most likely going to win Florida, Illinois and North Carolina Tuesday. That gives him at least 99 from Florida and 15 from Illinois, making 114. Since results for him are fairly consistent with poll numbers (unlike Cruz who does better), my guess is 30 delegates gained in North Carolina, making that 144. Illinois is winner take most, where people elect representatives who give their preferential candidate or list uncommitted by Congressional District. I don't know much that changes the equation, so I'll say he only wins 14/18 CDs, culminating 186 from the three states.

There's not much for polling in Missouri and the ones taken show Trump with single or low double digit leads. I think Cruz will win (but not by double digits) based on his performances in surrounding states. We'll say Trump wins two Congressional Districts there, bringing the total to 196. For the two other winner-take-all places, I believe Kasich will win Ohio and while having no clue on Northern Mariana Islands let's say he loses there too, finishing the day with 196 delegates.

That would be less than Five Thirty Eight's delegate goal of 272. Subtracting Guam and DC would put his total delegates at 658/687. This would be the first time since Iowa where he gets off track (96%). Not a huge dent though.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Hillary in St. Louis on last night

CdXKtK6VAAAUobJ.jpg:large
 

Makai

Member
Dude knows how to create a narrative.

So Drumpf is most likely going to win Florida, Illinois and North Carolina Tuesday. That gives him at least 99 from Florida and 15 from Illinois, making 114. Since results for him are fairly consistent with poll numbers (unlike Cruz who does better), my guess is 30 delegates gained in North Carolina, making that 144. Illinois is winner take most, where people elect representatives who give their preferential candidate or list uncommitted by Congressional District. I don't know much that changes the equation, so I'll say he only wins 14/18 CDs, culminating 186 from the three states.

There's not much for polling in Missouri and the ones taken show Drumpf with single or low double digit leads. I think Cruz will win (but not by double digits) based on his performances in surrounding states. We'll say Drumpf wins two Congressional Districts there, bringing the total to 196. For the two other winner-take-all places, I believe Kasich will win Ohio and while having no clue on Northern Mariana Islands let's say he loses there too, finishing the day with 196 delegates.

That would be less than Five Thirty Eight's delegate goal of 272. Subtracting Guam and DC would put his total delegates at 658/687. This would be the first time since Iowa where he gets off track (96%). Not a huge dent though.
Everyone else would be even further behind schedule.
 
She was working her way towards 500 pledged super delegates before the first debate, there's not much to be done on that front.
.

You know what would have been the bare minimum he could have done? Asked. Rep Clyburn said as much when someone asked him why he never considered endorsing Bernie. Bernie never asked.

Bernie doesn't seem one to know how to build bridges with people who aren't cut in his likeness.
 
Btw Hillary has like 90% approval among Democrats... She won't have any trouble turning out the base. The independents on the margins who only turned out for Obama, maybe not but this "Hillary doesn't excite anyone!" isn't very truthful.

But I guess if the metric of voter excitement is encouraging supporters to punch protesters in the face then this one is pretty much wrapped up.
 
Sure, that's a debate we can have. However, the chances of Bernie being able to get a single delegate more than Hillary is incredibly unlikely. Obama, at his best, managed a lead of 122 delegates over Hillary. By Tuesday, assuming everything breaks Bernie's way, Hillary will have a 275-300 pledged delegate lead. He'd have to get at least 60% of the remaining delegates to get the edge in pledged delegates. However, the moment she has enough pledged and superdelegates, the race will be over.

I'm aware of this, really it's not that complicated, what I'm trying to say is:

1. Sanders has little chance of overcoming the current pledged delegate lead, and as such, there's little point in adding superdelegates to "buffer" Hillary's lead, especially because:
2. In the event that Sanders actually DOES take the lead in pledged delegates, he'll quickly start cutting into the superdelegate margin, especially the greater his margin among pledged delegates.

nothing more, nothing less, I don't need lectures about how he's not going to win
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
My guess is someone on the campaign put that up after forgetting they already went through this very gaffe.
 
What about the polticial revolution? What good is it if it can't expand the map?

It is very good at stirring up physical revolution.

Honestly now the right can smear Bernie as the commie loving underminer who sends hit squads to prevent people from exercising their first amendment rights.
 

pigeon

Banned
Haha, from my FB feed.

998134_10156545553420507_3323498709785341611_n.jpg

You present me with a dilemma: I'm not sure whether "look at this Facebook meme about how America sucks" is better or worse in terms of post quality than "please explain the simplest things about America to me, also it sucks."
 

kess

Member
Downticket races ought to be interesting in PA, with the budget deadlock at stake on the state level. The Democrats haven't had a majority in the State Senate since the early 90s (admittedly, many of the Republicans back then were of the John Heinz variety). Democrats have done well recently in statewide races but legislative races seem to elude them. Toomey should be vulnerable -- a totally nondescript personality who has virtually no rapport with the general public.

EDIT: Hey look, Tom Ridge just endorsed Kasich.
 
Btw Hillary has like 90% approval among Democrats... She won't have any trouble turning out the base. The independents on the margins who only turned out for Obama, maybe not but this "Hillary doesn't excite anyone!" isn't very truthful.

But I guess if the metric of voter excitement is encouraging supporters to punch protesters in the face then this one is pretty much wrapped up.

What about the polticial revolution? What good is it if it can't expand the map?
This "Hillary isn't exciting!" argument is so tired. Well, if she isn't exciting and has gotten more votes than Bernie up to this point, what does that say of his revolution? Doesn't sound too exciting either.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Zeke Miller ‏@ZekeJMiller 1m1 minute ago
Rubio camp announces he’ll be in UT on Wednesday and Thursday, then CA for fundraisers Thursday and Friday
 

Kyosaiga

Banned
Hillary needs to do everything in her power to lock down whomever is on Sanders production team for his ads.

They've been goddamn excellent.
 

Clefargle

Member
The people that say Clinton isn't "exciting" are really saying she "isn't exciting millennials". Which by and large is true, but I wish they would just say that instead of stretching it. I mean, I'm a millennial and the thought of the first woman president excited me.Im used to being in the minority but I wish the Bernie supporters would stop being disengenuous to push their negativity
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Its a bad look pretending future constituents count less just because they are in a red state.

Isn't the pro-Bernie narrative that Hillary's wins in red states don't matter?

My concern is more that Bernie's revolution isn't causing unusually high turnout anywhere.
 
That Hillary quote and following photo with Sanders behind her is hilarious.

I've been going back and forth on supporting Clinton or Sanders. I think Clinton is easily the most qualified and knowledgeable candidate, but Sanders is easily more magnetic and likable and their positions are mostly pretty close to each other. However, I think Sanders is a bit one track minded and his policies are a little colorblind and his economic stances demand a strong level of suspension of disbelief. I'd be satisfied with either one tbh despite either of their shortcomings.

One thing I do worry about is whether either is more likely to be a one term president.

Not that it matters, I guess since I'm not eligible to vote yet. I might get to vote in the general however.

This "Hillary isn't exciting!" argument is so tired. Well, if she isn't exciting and has gotten more votes than Bernie up to this point, what does that say of his revolution? Doesn't sound too exciting either.

Doesnt Hillary have the most total votes of all candidates so far in to the primary season? Exactly how many 'exciting' candidates have there been in the last 50 years or so? Obama, JFK, Reagan...?
 
I'm so worried about Rubio not dropping out on Tuesday. He needs to go away!

It's better if he stays in. Let him split Cruz's vote in Arizona and Utah. Arizona is WTA and Utah becomes WTA if someone passes 50%, which Cruz could certainly do without Rubio.

He would have little self respect to do so after losing Florida. Then again, maybe it's a party first decision for the anti-Trump coalition.
It'd be better for the party if he dropped out today.
 
What about the polticial revolution? What good is it if it can't expand the map?
Aren't these usually the people who whine about the 50 state strategy too?

Which is almost always misunderstood anyway, it meant supporting guys like Walt Minnick, Gene Taylor, Bobby Bright etc. who could get elected in conservative seats because hey, extra votes for Speaker Pelosi, yoink. Instead if you listened to DailyKos front pagers you'd think it means we should run Bernie clones in Wyoming and give them all the money.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
It'd be better for the party if he dropped out today.
I wouldn't be so sure. I posed this question before here without a real consensus of the best strategy to defeat Trump. I think more Rubio supporters would go to Cruz than Trump, but it might still not be enough for Cruz to win the nomination. In that scenario it could backfire, siphoning less votes. Still, I think it would improve the chances of Cruz taking more winner-take-all states.

What I just thought of today is the possibility of skipping over Cruz at a brokered convention. Not nominating the second choice candidate would be going too far, right? Do they dislike Cruz that much? Despite hope being lost for Ruboto's campaign, I imagine the party would rather have him over Kasich, despite IMO the governor having a higher chance to beat Hillary. Kasich doesn't have any enthusiasm though and would entice Trump's supporters less than Cruz.
 
Hillary has a 225 pledged delegate advantage. If Hillary has one single pledged delegate more than Bernie, she will be the nominee. Period. They will not abandon ship to tie themselves to Bernie Sanders. You may not like Superdelegates, but they are part of the primary, and the only way to win is through them. Bernie could have tried making nice with them, instead of throwing huge swaths of the Democratic Party under the bus.

There is no scenario in which a man that recently joined the party, running against someone with as much history in the party as Hillary Clinton, would ever manage to convert those delegates. None. Not even if he personally went and bribed and/or fellated every single one of them.

Well, that's too much. If The Revolution had happened and he had been scoring 60%+ everywhere, then maybe.
 
I wouldn't be so sure. I posed this question before here without a real consensus of the best strategy to defeat Trump. I think more Rubio supporters would go to Cruz than Trump, but it might still not be enough for Cruz to win the nomination. In that scenario it could backfire, siphoning less votes. Still, I think it would improve the chances of Cruz taking more winner-take-all states.

What I just thought of today is the possibility of skipping over Cruz at a brokered convention. Not nominating the second choice candidate would be going too far, right? Do they dislike Cruz that much? Despite hope being lost for Ruboto's campaign, I imagine the party would rather have him over Kasich, despite IMO the governor having a higher chance to beat Hillary. Kasich doesn't have any enthusiasm though and would entice Trump's supporters less than Cruz.
Convention talk is meaningless unless they can stop Trump from getting a majority, or even within arms reach of a majority. Rubio staying in will help Trump in numerous WTA states this month hindering the most vital aspect of any attempt to stop Trump from getting the nomination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom