• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

Trakar said:
Yellow is only blue away from green, it is unfortunate that actual analysis about issues of importance to me do not conform to the guesstimation generalities of your internet poll experience. Hopefully your actual consideration of these issues is based upon more compelling and quantitative analyses.
Click to expand...
By any measure, Clinton is far closer to Sanders than to Cruz, or Rubio, or Trump.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Trakar, your sour grapes are misplaced. Super delegates have never been used to override the popular vote in a Democratic Primary. I posted a link to that effect in one of these threads earlier...
Click to expand...

I don't understand your reference to sour grapes?!
I am merely discussing the appropriateness of voting for candidates and public policies versus voting your fears of what might happen if you can't twist enough arms and frighten enough children to nominate a flawed and unelectable general election Democratic candidate.
As far as I know both candidates are currently tied with 51 committed delegates apiece.
 
wareyin said:
By any measure, Clinton is far closer to Sanders than to Cruz, or Rubio, or Trump.
Click to expand...

Recognize this poll:

picture.php



http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/0...ary-clinton-and-supporters-of-bernie-sanders/
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
I don't understand your reference to sour grapes?!
Click to expand...
You sounded like you were pouting, Sanders didn't win NV and you're already off saying they better not use the super delegates to override the popular vote even though there is not evidence that will be the case.

As for being tied, whatever, there are 47 states to go. Sanders is not predicted to win a majority of those states and Clinton is set to win the majority of delegates on super Tuesday as well as S Carolina will almost certainly put her ahead in current delegates.

I am merely discussing the appropriateness of voting for candidates and public policies versus voting your fears of what might happen if you can't twist enough arms and frighten enough children to nominate a flawed and unelectable general election Democratic candidate.
As far as I know both candidates are currently tied with 51 committed delegates apiece.
Click to expand...
No, you said that after you said they better not decide the winner with super delegates.
Trakar said:
If super-delegates end up being a major reason Clinton wins the democratic primary, then they will also be a major reason Democratic turn-out is low in both the primaries and the general election, and a main reason why third party votes go up. There are, and should always be, consequences to the choices people make.
Click to expand...

BTW, we don't all agree with you that Clinton is a terrible candidate.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, you said that after you said they better not decide the winner with super delegates.
Click to expand...

No, I followed the hypothesis being discussed, which makes me question your reading comprehension skills as it is clear from the text of the message you then quoted:
Trakar said:
If super-delegates end up being a major reason Clinton wins the democratic primary, then they will also be a major reason Democratic turn-out is low in both the primaries and the general election, and a main reason why third party votes go up. There are, and should always be, consequences to the choices people make.
Click to expand...

I do not expect the super delegates to be stupid enough to act against the party's best interest, but if they did, then it would be reasonable for the consequences I discussed to be laid at their feet as well.
 
Trakar said:
No, I followed the hypothesis being discussed, which makes me question your reading comprehension skills as it is clear from the text of the message you then quoted:
I do not expect the super delegates to be stupid enough to act against the party's best interest, but if they did, then it would be reasonable for the consequences I discussed to be laid at their feet as well.
Click to expand...
Whatever. I read sour grapes in your post and it still looks like it to me.

It's just an opinion.
 
wareyin said:
I took one of those silly online quizzes that were posted on ISkep purporting to tell you which candidate you should support...
Click to expand...

If http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016 was not the source of the online quiz you are talking about can you link the one you are talking about so we can compare your recollections and assessment of what a reasonable measurement for you looks like?
 
OK, I had a couple glasses of wine, so I'm going to go a long way out on a very slender limb. With a saw in my hand to cut it off behind me.

Rubio will be the R nominee.

One or both of Cruz and Trump will launch 3rd party campaigns against him. Cruz because Gawd is on his side, Trump because Trump is on his side. Which is the same thing.
I'm willing to make an avatar bet on this. As long as your choice is some sort of hurling engine, other than a spoonapult or air cannon.
 
Trebuchet said:
OK, I had a couple glasses of wine, so I'm going to go a long way out on a very slender limb. With a saw in my hand to cut it off behind me.

Rubio will be the R nominee.

One or both of Cruz and Trump will launch 3rd party campaigns against him. Cruz because Gawd is on his side, Trump because Trump is on his side. Which is the same thing.
I'm willing to make an avatar bet on this. As long as your choice is some sort of hurling engine, other than a spoonapult or air cannon.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I don't think that's such a bad bet on your part actually. A number of things need to fall in place for this to happen but its not impossible. Really, if the establishment can coalesce behind Rubio and Cruz loses significant momentum Rubio being the nominee becomes a lot more likely.
 
Trebuchet said:
One or both of Cruz and Trump will launch 3rd party campaigns against him. Cruz because Gawd is on his side, Trump because Trump is on his side. Which is the same thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can see Cruz making a third party run, even with George Burns on his side.
 
elbe said:
I'm not sure I can see Cruz making a third party run, even with George Burns on his side.
Click to expand...

I agree.
Although, I can picture Cruz trying to assassinate Rubio.

Disclaimer:
I am not advocating violence of any sort. I am making a joke about Ted Cruz's all-consuming thirst for power. It appears that Cruz believes that there is no lie too great, no slander too low, no action too cutthroat.

In fact, I am baffled as to how Senator Cruz has avoided the nickname Senator Palpatine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom