The election is wearing on me

[sunmaster14]

And just how did this "head start" change the popular vote? Do you really think voters looked at the superdelegate support to decide who to vote for?

Was this head start maybe because she's had more national experience ergo more recognition as a viable candidate?

Of course. It was in part Hillary's name recognition (Bernie had none, and people generally don't vote for somebody they've never heard of), and it was in part the self-fulfilling aura of inevitability. Hillary also had a ton of money and a very sophisticated campaign infrastructure, since she's been running off and on for President since 2006.

Halfway through the final leg? Seriously?

Actually, the analogy is quite apt. If the Presidential campaign begins shortly after the mid-term elections, then it lasts about 2 years. The final leg is the last six months, and we're well into that. Bernie didn't throw his hat into the ring until about the halfway point, and, at the time, he didn't even have running shoes (or a hat, anymore).

Why post this nonsense? All but Sanders most ardent minions know it's BS.

Not nonsense. I actually prefer Hillary to Bernie, but the fact is, Bernie is a better candidate for the Democrats. He is proving it when it counts, which is now. The reason we force sports teams to play a championship, rather than just award the trophy to the team with the best regular season record is because the fans care about finding out who the best team is at the end of the season. Not at the beginning or the middle. The end. Otherwise, you would have the Super Bowl in September and the World Series in April.

Now, although the Democratic primary doesn't have a series of postseason games, it does have the superdelegate system. There is nothing stopping the superdelegates from voting for whom they think is the best candidate. And as long as Hillary doesn't have a majority of delegates based on her pledged delegates alone, she doesn't have this thing wrapped up. That's just a simple fact of mathematics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course. It was in part Hillary's name recognition (Bernie had none, and people generally don't vote for somebody they've never heard of), and it was in part the self-fulfilling aura of inevitability. Hillary also had a ton of money and a very sophisticated campaign infrastructure, since she's been running off and on for President since 2006.

And yet in the first primary they came close to tying and Sanders won the next one. It wasn't until the southern states came into play that Clinton pulled ahead.

Your hypothesis fails.

Actually, the analogy is quite apt. If the Presidential campaign begins shortly after the mid-term elections, then it lasts about 2 years. The final leg is the last six months, and we're well into that. Bernie didn't throw his hat into the ring until about the halfway point, and, at the time, he didn't even have running shoes (or a hat, anymore).

IOW cherry picked. Clinton is 90 delegates short of a win. and there is for all practical purposes, only one month left of a 5 month long primary. That is more than half over by a long way.

Not nonsense. I actually prefer Hillary to Bernie, but the fact is, Bernie is a better candidate for the Democrats. He is proving it when it counts, which is now. The reason we force sports teams to play a championship, rather than just award the trophy to the team with the best regular season record is because the fans care about finding out who the best team is at the end of the season. Not at the beginning or the middle. The end. Otherwise, you would have the Super Bowl in September and the World Series in April.

Same argument Sanders makes. The big problem: he's lost the election. Pretty sure that is the better measure than Sanders likes his position better.

Now, although the Democratic primary doesn't have a series of postseason games, it does have the superdelegate system. There is nothing stopping the superdelegates from voting for whom they think is the best candidate. And as long as Hillary doesn't have a majority of delegates based on her pledged delegates alone, she doesn't have this thing wrapped up. That's just a simple fact of mathematics.

I would call that a simple fact of fantasy.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm astonished how everyone keeps telling me to ignore the terrible thing rather than try and fix it.

Travis, it's your job to fix the moronosphere!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump is SURGING AHEAD—oh for pity's sake. Gawd, both CNN and MSNBC are making up narratives based on meaningless polls. "Within the margin of error becomes "surging ahead."

Not to mention the polls are all pretty much even and don't count at this point anyway.

 

[Travis]

Setting up a private email server and conducting 100% of her work as Sec of State through it, all for the purpose of evading FOIA disclosure, doesn't rise to that level, huh? I'd be interested in an example of something that would rise to that level with you. Consider carefully, though. You might end up finding out that she has already done it.

Nope, doesn't bother me a bit.

Things that would bother me would be her promising to not only not increase minimum wages but to abolish it. Or defund Planned Parenthood. Or work to undermine gay marriage. Or pretend Global Warming is a hoax.

If Hillary does any of that I will be mad. In the meantime I don't care if she mainlines the blood of cute puppies for kicks.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

2. Take it from a Bernie supporter, we'll end up voting for Hillary.

Who's this "we"? Many Bernie supporters are independents, not Democrats, and they feel no allegiance to the Democrat Party.

I starting to worry that we might see a Tea Party of the left because of this primary. But at least the fanatical Bernie supporters don't have a Koch brothers type backer behind them so maybe not.

Why are you "worried" about a "Tea Party of the left"? Over the years, I've been told by various concern-trolling Democrats that we Greens need to get realistic, abandon our party, and work within the Democrat Party to move it to the left. You know, just like the Tea Party did with the Republicans.

Okay, so now somebody's done exactly that, and the Democrats are running around with their hair on fire. You just can't make some people happy.

You think that the right wing did give up?

I think that it's a common handwaving technique when people bring up issues with Hillary. It's all just GOP propaganda, dontcha know.

 

[Tony Stark]

Who's this "we"? Many Bernie supporters are independents, not Democrats, and they feel no allegiance to the Democrat Party.



Why are you "worried" about a "Tea Party of the left"? Over the years, I've been told by various concern-trolling Democrats that we Greens need to get realistic, abandon our party, and work within the Democrat Party to move it to the left. You know, just like the Tea Party did with the Republicans.

Okay, so now somebody's done exactly that, and the Democrats are running around with their hair on fire. You just can't make some people happy.



I think that it's a common handwaving technique when people bring up issues with Hillary. It's all just GOP propaganda, dontcha know.

We don't need a crazy, fanatical, and irrational faction of the Democrats.

 

[DavidJames]

Who's this "we"? Many Bernie supporters are independents, not Democrats, and they feel no allegiance to the Democrat Party.

Enjoy life under Trump then. You'll have contributed to it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

We don't need a crazy, fanatical, and irrational faction of the Democrats.

We don't get the parties we need, we get the parties we deserve.

 

[sunmaster14]

Nope, doesn't bother me a bit.

Things that would bother me would be her promising to not only not increase minimum wages but to abolish it. Or defund Planned Parenthood. Or work to undermine gay marriage. Or pretend Global Warming is a hoax.

If Hillary does any of that I will be mad. In the meantime I don't care if she mainlines the blood of cute puppies for kicks.

Remember, the question wasn't whether there was something she has done which would make you reconsider your support for her. It was whether there was something she has done which would make you go "jeez, she shouldn't have done that, and I wish she hadn't."

I think you must have lost sight of that. Or maybe you just don't like puppies.

 

[sunmaster14]

Trump is SURGING AHEAD—oh for pity's sake. Gawd, both CNN and MSNBC are making up narratives based on meaningless polls. "Within the margin of error becomes "surging ahead."

Not to mention the polls are all pretty much even and don't count at this point anyway.

Fine. The polls are pretty much even. That's still a long ways from where the Dems thought they were a couple of months ago when Trump had a 70% disapproval rate, and Dems thought that meant he couldn't win the Presidency. If you're not panicking now, you're in denial.

Actually, this election is really feeling like 1992 to me. The electorate wants the shiny new thing, not the stodgy old reliable thing. There won't be any Ross Perot in the race to jumble things up, but Trump is kind of like Bill Clinton and Ross Perot all rolled into one.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Needs an exclamation mark, worse spelling and more self adulation.

Also, a point would help.

via FakeTrumpTweet.com generator

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fine. The polls are pretty much even. That's still a long ways from where the Dems thought they were a couple of months ago when Trump had a 70% disapproval rate, and Dems thought that meant he couldn't win the Presidency. If you're not panicking now, you're in denial.

Actually, this election is really feeling like 1992 to me. The electorate wants the shiny new thing, not the stodgy old reliable thing. There won't be any Ross Perot in the race to jumble things up, but Trump is kind of like Bill Clinton and Ross Perot all rolled into one.

My point was, this isn't news. A meaningless poll is not news that Trump is surging ahead.

 

[angrysoba]

Trump is way too unpopular to get elected. Look at the favourability polls! He is finished.

Trump's pulling even? Who cares, the polls are meaningless at this stage.

 

[sunmaster14]

My point was, this isn't news. A meaningless poll is not news that Trump is surging ahead.

Well, I agree with that bit. But it seems to me that the goalposts of Hillary supporters have been shifting over the last few weeks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I agree with that bit. But it seems to me that the goalposts of Hillary supporters have been shifting over the last few weeks.

If you are talking about in this forum, post the contradicting quotes. I'm not seeing any shifting goalposts.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Enjoy life under Trump then. You'll have contributed to it.

Nice try. I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting for Jill Stein.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nice try. I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Depending on the state you are in, that may be a vote for Trump.

 

[d4m10n]

Depending on the state you are in, that may be a vote for Trump.

We all have fond memories of the Nader Administration. An idyllic time.

 

[fuelair]

Nope, doesn't bother me a bit.

Things that would bother me would be her promising to not only not increase minimum wages but to abolish it. Or defund Planned Parenthood. Or work to undermine gay marriage. Or pretend Global Warming is a hoax.

If Hillary does any of that I will be mad. In the meantime I don't care if she mainlines the blood of cute puppies for kicks.

On the other hand I am pretty sure mainlining dog blood would eliminate her from further existence.