• 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 |OT6| Delete your accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Emarv

Member
(note: My math may be off. i'm quickly doing this at work)

Super Delegates are built into the 2,383 number. They make it roughly 50.003% of the total delegate count. Asking to reach that percentage without Supers is dumb.

So, if we take out the 712 Supers, we get 4,051 pledged delegates, which makes the same 50.003% number Hillary needs to hit roughly 2,102 instead of 2,383. This is the real number people should refer to instead of trying to hit a pledged delegate count that she's inherently handicapped against because you morally object to it.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
adam387 said:
See, the thing is, Bernie could have made an argument about SuperDelegates if he'd wanted to. Not that they should go away, but I think he probably could have gotten a concession that SuperDelegates aren't allowed to declare until after their state votes. (It's stupid, and I don't agree with it, but it's an argument that could have been made.)

Now, though, his campaign has been throwing every bit of shit out about Supers that you can think of. They have no cognizant argument on this issue anymore.
Click to expand...

The advantage to that is it prevents some of the media from using it in totals. It's not a bad argument, but of course ita bit one he is making.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
HUELEN10 said:
I don't think I've ever posted my thoughts on Iraq, might be wrong, but I don't think so.

I don't see the relevance in your query. Isn't that just a thing, if the case, that Clinton and Biden have in common?
Click to expand...
Just wondering what you see in Biden that you don't in Hillary. They're pretty much the same.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
The title of the video linked:

"Is Facebook Psychologically Profiling Users Sharing Political Content; Survey Says YES"



LOL

People are quite literally engaging the conspiracy confirmation bias to high gear when they receive surveys from websites.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Emarv said:
(note: My math may be off. i'm quickly doing this at work)

Super Delegates are built into the 2,383 number. They make it roughly 50.003% of the total delegate count. Asking to reach that percentage without Supers is dumb.

So, if we take out the 712 Supers, we get 4,051 pledged delegates, which makes the same 50.003% number Hillary needs to hit roughly 2,102 instead of 2,383. This is the real number people should refer to instead of trying to hit a pledged delegate count that she's inherently handicapped against because you morally object to it.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, it's 2026 (4051/2 = 2025.5). Second, most places have already been using the 2026 number, such as 538's delegate count.
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
RustyNails said:
Tbh I don't think his laptop can support any program that requires more memory than MS paint.
Click to expand...

2 GB, yo, and Windows Vista Home Premium ;). For a while now Chrome's been saying they're dropping support for Vista :(, although I can't imagine what Chrome needs in later versions of Windows that mandates this. I suppose it could be they just don't want to not have to test in Vista anymore...

It would actually be fine, except for the ridiculous amount of memory Chrome sometimes uses. Probably in an effort to negate this, fairly recently I noticed that Chrome was reloading tabs, on re-selecting them, and on research I found you can disable this via chrome://flags/#automatic-tab-discarding (copy and paste into address box). But, this can cause excessive use of Virtual Memory (disk thrashing), and even the odd blue screen...
 
I

Iolo

Member
I see that, after launching Bernie Sanders to stratospheric heights, Facebook has finally initiated phase 2 of their plan: unjustly snatch the nomination away from him via survey. It's always the betrayal that hurts the most.

3phemeral said:
JS0AeE
Click to expand...
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Daniel B·;204130107 said:
2 GB, yo, and Windows Vista Home Premium ;). For a while now Chrome's been saying they're dropping support of Vista :(, although I can't imagine what Chrome needs in later versions of Windows that mandates this. I suppose it could be they just don't want to not have to test in Vista anymore...

It would actually be fine, except for the ridiculous amount of memory Chrome sometimes uses. Probably in an effort to negate this, fairly recently I noticed that Chrome was reloading tabs, on re-selecting them, and on research I found you can disable this via chrome://flags/#automatic-tab-discarding (copy and paste into address box). But, this can cause excessive use of Virtual Memory (disk thrashing), and even the odd blue screen...
Click to expand...

OMG VISTA!?

Every time I think you can't top yourself, you do. Bravo! :) I want to buy you a beer or....um..whatever $2 wine you said you liked. I mean< I can't get high and mighty on poor taste in alcohol so...yasss, Daniel! You do you.
 
HUELEN10

HUELEN10

Member
Someone called Clinton a bitch in the Clinton thread. I kinda understood what they were going for, but still, you don't say that.

Which got me thinking. On the grand scheme of things for the whole of the nation, do you think there might still be a sizable percentage of people who wouldn't vote for her in a general merely because she is female?

Voters should NOT judge on skin color, sex, gender, or looks, but having an African American identifying biracial president and not a woman seems backwards, specially when women's rights started happening for equality before black rights.
 
T

TheFatOne

Member
HUELEN10 said:
Someone called Clinton a bitch in the Clinton thread. I kinda understood what they were going for, but still, you don't say that.

Which got me thinking. On the grand scheme of things for the whole of the nation, do you think there might still be a sizable percentage of people who wouldn't vote for her in a general merely because she is female?
Click to expand...
Easy yes next question.
 
S

studyguy

Member
Iolo said:
I see that, after launching Bernie Sanders to stratospheric heights, Facebook has finally initiated phase 2 of their plan: unjustly snatch the nomination away from him via survey. It's always the betrayal that hurts the most.
Click to expand...

All according to kawaii
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
jack_package_200 said:
https://twitter.com/SusanSarandon/status/733360227404419073


The ignorance berns.
Click to expand...

Lol cute he's arguing that the caucus states would have had the same win % if they were primaries and I guess wants to argue since Sanders won x% of a Caucasus he should get x% of the entire state population added to his pop vote count.

He also argued that Superdelegates are undemocratic and are stealing the election for Clinton and then said that they should all turn around and steal the election for Sanders.
 
T

Thequietone

Member
HUELEN10 said:
Someone called Clinton a bitch in the Clinton thread. I kinda understood what they were going for, but still, you don't say that.

Which got me thinking. On the grand scheme of things for the whole of the nation, do you think there might still be a sizable percentage of people who wouldn't vote for her in a general merely because she is female?

Voters should judge on skin color, sex, gender, or looks, but having an African American identifying biracial president and not a woman seems backwards, specially when women's rights started happening inequality before black rights.
Click to expand...
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeep, I've heard so many people say God doesn't want a woman to be in charge of America/men since she started running that I lost count. Also heard her being called every female derogatory remark you can think of. Some are even democrats!
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
ciaossu said:
He's a self-aware troll most likely
Click to expand...

Not me guvnor, honestly ;).

Seriously though, you're reading too much into my "Still holds up as a classic Danny B post ;)." post, as I was essentially just saying that I was happy with my original post, highlighting Bernie's recent delegate gains (gap now down to 272), in my inimitable, hopefully entertaining fashion :).
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
Hey everyone, perhaps someone can come up with a good answer to this chap's Facebook post on my feed?

Someone needs to explain to me how Clinton is able to claim that 3 million more people have voted for her than for Sanders. As far as I can tell, these numbers are coming from RealClear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/…/democratic_vote_count.ht… - but if you look at the actual table, any state with a Caucus has no vote count at all. And since Bernie won ALL of those... a pretty significant number of people aren't being added to those totals... so why is this number continuing to be propagated as 'truth'? (If you google 'primaries', you get Google's reporting... but (for example) Washington shows 19,159 votes for Sanders, 7,140 votes for Clinton... when all the LOCAL reporting said more than a quarter-million people voted here. So why the 10% number? Or RealClear Politics' non-number?)
Click to expand...
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
adam387 said:
OMG VISTA!?

Every time I think you can't top yourself, you do. Bravo! :) I want to buy you a beer or....um..whatever $2 wine you said you liked. I mean< I can't get high and mighty on poor taste in alcohol so...yasss, Daniel! You do you.
Click to expand...

Yep, still enjoying my Tisdale $2 Merlot (now $3.50 - outrageous) :). With the imminent loss of Chrome support, and the possibility of a as yet undetected "whopper of a security hole", I might just have to consider upgrading, although, surely they've ironed out all the whoppers by now!
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Caucuses are like 10s of thousands of people. They have incredibly low turn outs.

Add like 100k to Bernie's total vote count if you want. And that would be insanely generous
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom