NoblesseOblige
Banned
It's as pathetic as sports team fans who say their team would have won the championship had they not lost to the team that came in 2nd.
-
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.
Vox: Bernie Sanders is the Democrats real 2020 frontrunner
- Thread starter Oni Jazar
- Start date
- Status
It's as pathetic as sports team fans who say their team would have won the championship had they not lost to the team that came in 2nd.
Dangansona
Member
Yeah that's where I'm at too. It should be Elizabeth Warren instead.
eBay Huckster
Member
Horford Would Have Won
you know, the fucked up thing about this is i can say it for two out of the last three years
and also that el_tiguere just proved both of our points entirely
El_Tiguere
Member
But you have NO LOGIC behind this assertion, so what gives?
Bernie did not beat Hillary because the DNC colluded with the media and the campaign to placate his rise in popularity at every turn.
The internal battle between Democrats won't heal until Hillary supporters recognize such an obvious FACT of the 2016 primaries. Corporations got their corporate candidate, and colluded against the anti-corporate candidate. They tried the same shit with Corbyn in the UK, but young people and independents knew a bit better this time around.
It is true when you realize the team that came in 2nd had referees doing tons of bullshit calls against the team that could have won all along the way.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
What? kirblar is using data that's literally 17 years out of date and I'm the one tripling down? Get a grip!
excelsiorlef
Member
Other people were involved too.
Well to be fair, neither spots games nor politics are so simple that they can just be broken down with the transitive property.
VendettaRed07
Member
"Sore loser".
I mean sure he was. But so what. Hillary literally said in 08 that the reason she stayed in the race beyond when it seemed like she had the possibility of winning that Obama could be assasinated any day now so she needed to be there on the back up. Politicians get shitty, petty and gross when they feel like they are losing.
I don't doubt for a second that Bernie was likely up to some corrupt shit in Vermont but it's unlikely anything serious other than attack ads come of it. If Trump got away with what he has done for as long as he has good luck waiting for Bernie to go down in a primary race.
It would be nice though if we could go into this primary in 2020 without these predetermined biases ready to hate people or hoping they are jailed or fucking die or some shit. If you got back to 08 it's miraculous the sort of turnaround people ( on this very forum, even) had on Hillary after what some of the stuff she said. People gave her another chance to correct and "rebrand" herself after a really shitty and ugly primary. Bernie said a lot of dumb shit that pissed me off but I'm willing to give him another chance if he runs just like I did with Hillary.
Veritigo_X
Member
It sounds crazy because there's literally no other possibility.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
You may have missed it but reality doesn't operate on rock-paper-scissors mechanics in a game. You have to beat all the opponents you face to progress to victory. Bernie lost to Hillary. Hillary lost to Trump.
Fenderputty
Banned
Has Bernie won the California primary yet?
*sees post asking people to stop with the crazy 'what if' scenarios*
*replies with nonsense 'what if' scenario*
Mother of god.
jack_package_200
Banned
Trying to paint all Hillary supporters with this brush is a super shitty thing to do.
Go fuck yourself.
I kind of agree with this. With the last part. I'd take a dying Bernie over a living trump.
eBay Huckster
Member
while we're on the subject of what-if scenarios that will never be tested, what if kevin durant and stephen curry both came down with the shits before every game of the nba finals this year
jesus christ, it's like i'm looking through a mirror into last june except you legitimately still believe this shit
jesus christ, it's like i'm looking through a mirror into last june except you legitimately still believe this shit
El_Tiguere
Member
Have they counted the millions of votes from independents that the DNC and corporate lapdogs wanted to silence because it wasn't for their queen?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Right, and I've literally linked them to the US census bureau containing all of the census information to the present date, on which they can search any of the relevant counties, which corroborates my point. The only legitimate point is whyiamhere pointing out I exaggerated by saying 'Romney Republicans', since they voted Democrat, but you get my point - it's that small clique of people who would be favourable towards Clinton and Romney but disfavourable towards Trump and Sanders, and who do not represent a winning path forward - they're literally on the opposite end of the political axis to the average swing voter.
But you didn't even mean that. I bet you didn't even look at any of the census data. Instead you made a low-effort shitpost that contributed absolutely nothing to this thread whatsoever. Gee, thanks.
You provided Household Median income instead of Median Individual without labelling it as such. That is disingenous.
It is a district that contained 4 complete counties at the time. (in addition to the exurban/rural parts of others) It is a district that was wrapping around the outside of the city. This is not a place filed with "wealthy elites."
The current district is indeed a safe D district now because the district now contains Albany and virtually none of the area it previously did. The current district is irrelevant.
Using this data- this is today's household median for the four counties that were fully part of it- https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml#
Warren- 56,798
Washington - 51,143
Essex - 52,758
Greene - 50,278
This is not "high" or "abnormal" - her district was literally right on the median of the entire US - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
GurgleBot20
Member
Love the insinuation of this sentence.
It's even worse. "Bernie would've won"-ers aren't citing polls from a general election that never happened, they're citing polls from a general election that never happened in the absence of any kind of Presidential campaign.
You're kidding yourself if months on top of months of brutal campaigning would leave Bernie's public image as shiny as it is.
Henchmen21
Banned
Not "what if scenario". Actual, Factual numbers. Just because you chose to ignore them doesn't make them go away.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
haha okay
Lol what. If you want to galvanize the opposing base then yeah Warren is a great choice(I like her, but come on).
I assumed the numbers were updated w/ 2010 data since the 2010 data was referenced on the page. I've updated w/ the current numbers above- and they still don't say what you want them to say.
whyamihere
Banned
Is not monolithic but is certainly still there, as every Bernie thread getting so heated up shows (specially the one regarding the FBI and the Repblican instigated investigation). There is a very vocal group of gaf posters who are explicit in showing their dislike for left policies and their love for centrist views. And some of them use the Bernie / Clinton axis too. I see no wrong in this, tbh. Like I see no problem with me being explicit about not sympathizing with centrists views. Is not about the primary, is about conceptualizing the ideological -isms currently present in left / liberal politics that already existed but became clearer after the primary. Bernie and Clinton are great, accurate references.
Finally, me posting like 3 snarky comments questioning Switch's shipments situation in Japan is hardly the most extreme commentary you will find in the MC threads.
Oh, and Valentina WON.
Bernie and Clinton were tired references in the primary, and they're more tired now as Clinton is no longer a player and Bernie has ingratiated himself more with the Dem establishment and moderated some of his views. I'm more on the Bernie side of the ideological divide, and I find "Bernie v Clinton" to be reductive and completely useless.
And yes, they are the dumber things said in an MC thread and you deserved to be called out as such for them being bad.
And Valentina flopped harder than Bernie in the South.
El_Tiguere
Member
Let me guess... Trump was going to call Bernie a "Crazy socialist!", say that he had a picture of Che Guevara in his office? That surely would have scared the bejeezuz out of your Republican grannies...
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
The Tuck Rule wasn't cheating
El_Tiguere
Member
The referees and media announcers being in the tank for one team was cheating.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You're still doing it, you're just using 'complete' counties to give you an out, since it allows you to ignore Dutchess, the vast majority of which was in NY 20, it allows you to ignore Columbia, the vast majority of which was in NY 20, it allows you to ignore Saratoga, the vast majority of which was in NY 20. These are all very wealthy districts, and you just won't stop cherry-picking to get away from it.
I am confident Trump would beat Gillibrand. This would be awful for America and those who are most vulnerable. The idea that you would seriously put her forward as a candidate is depressing beyond all belief. Pick Harris, pick Cortez-Masto, pick Brown, pick literally anyone else.
jack_package_200
Banned
The whole business with his wife and that university, the rape essay, support of Fidel Castro, praising breadlines
The right would have gone nuts with it.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
This user still has their Hillary avatar how am I making up "imaginary" Hillgaf?
You don't understand how the process works. There are no "actual, factual" numbers for a Trump vs. Bernie election.
Polls are not "actual, factual" numbers that act as proof that Bernie would have beaten Trump.
Other people have responded to you in this thread to explain why but you've chosen to ignore those posts.
Father_Brain
Banned
We'll never know if Bernie would have won, but the notion that Trump was invincible is completely absurd and defeatist.
eBay Huckster
Member
i... wouldn't exactly characterize columbia county as "very wealthy".
dutchess county is firmly middle class. saratoga is the closest to being Coastal Elite Central, and that's just because it actually has a thriving tech sector.
dutchess county is firmly middle class. saratoga is the closest to being Coastal Elite Central, and that's just because it actually has a thriving tech sector.
Fenderputty
Banned
So he didn't win California? Does that mean he's mathematically eliminated? His narrow losses in the south had me feeling' like he got this.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Okay, Columbia is merely 'wealthy', the other two are 'very wealthy'.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Because I don't have the original avatar and I'm too lazy to go find it
But thanks for dragging me into your obsession.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I don't know which of these posts is the most embarrassing, but yikes, you guys.
Henchmen21
Banned
Polls are what have accurately or semi-accurately predicted elections for decades but because you clintonites chose to ignore them in favor of your "Queen" they suddenly stop being relevent?
It's also revisionist history bs. Clintonites ego's are so tied to her that they think if she couldn't beat Trump, than no one could. And they have the gall to say republican's use alternate facts?
Fenderputty
Banned
I feel like Vox intentionally misspelled Kamala Harris to generate hits.
jack_package_200
Banned
I don't know which of these posts is the most embarrassing, but yikes, you guys.
Its Real Hero and it isn't even close
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yeah, I suppose. The other two are just eye-rolls but this one is just pathetic and desperate.
eBay Huckster
Member
real median household income in 2015 was $56,516 nationally. columbia's was $58,335. that is not "wealthy".
Polls showed Hillary beating Trump running up to the election, are polls suddenly accurate for the hypothetical Sanders vs Trump even though the reality of Hillary vs Trump showed that polling during the election might have had serious issues?
To be quite clear, this is a recess week, right after this we'll have to go back to clenching our butts on healthcare. Why do we have to do this again?
Ziltoidia 9
Member
They also feel the need to say why every other candidate is horrible while ignoring the fact that they were wrong about denying Hillary was a horrible candidate.
"Its just 35 years of hate against her! The republicans actually like her! We know everything about her!"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked