• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

Jimmy Higgins said:
From what I've seen on line, I think Sanders has a higher percentage of the pledged delegates than percent of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the actual breakdown, he's still running second in a one-person race. He needs to keep campaigning in order to prevent Clinton from swinging to the center until after all the left-wing positions she's discovered that she's always supported this week are written into the Democratic platform at the convention and it's more difficult for her to forget about how passionate and commited to them she is, but his campaign needs to be recognizing that she's the nominee and proceed in a way that doesn't undercut her so that the Democratic party has as strong a showing as possible, so the down ticket races go their way as well and they can actually get some of the stuff he cares about implemented instead of obstructionism causing nothing to happen for another four years.
 
Meanwhile in AM Radio Ville where the propagandists work five days a week, talking for about 80 minutes in a 180 minute show, things seemed quite sad, but in general, 'we must vote for Trump to save America from Clinton and the continuation of Obama's destructive policies'.

Dennis Prager sounded like a whiny bitch, that conservatism has somewhat died in the GOP. Prager is just now somewhat understanding something about the Republican Party and its supporters. The RP isn't a conservative party. It stopped being anything but partisan in 2009, and was moving on that path since Gingrich. So it should be little surprise that the base of a partisan party selected a partisan to be the nominee.

Rush Limbaugh was having a hard time getting behind Trump. He doesn't think Trump is a conservative. But Limbaugh was flabbergasted over a few notable conservatives saying they'd vote for Clinton. This guy has made his career off of the Clintons, he can't change tack now.

Glen Beck sounded like his normal self, he has the cure for America.

A local host was chastizing any caller saying they couldn't get behind Trump because the guy lacks an actual platform. One caller said he'd stay home and the Host said that it'd be support for Clinton. It is either you are for us or against us. Also go to Trump's website for a platform (if you do, you won't find much of a platform).

A number of Trump supporter calls, once again having no actual ability to explain why Trump is right other than 'it is time for a change'.

One funny thing I heard (forget whom it was, maybe Limbaugh), that the propagandist recalled having to plug their nose to vote for McCain. That the Republicans were the party that needed to be united after the last couple of primaries, and that was happening again. The oddity here is that the uber-Republicans are the ones supporting Trump. This is the first time the Establishment has been asked to get back with the fold. McCain was too liberal. Romney was too liberal. Trump is too... umm... liberal? But the ones who voted for Trump were the ones complaining about McCain and Romney!

My favorite time is when any of these hosts use the term "establishment" with the Republican Party, as if they aren't a keystone within the establishment.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
PyramidHead said:
Cite?
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ries-sway-democratic-superdelegates/83795524/

So, he's not saying that they should override the will of the electorate, just that they should along with the candidate that their state chose and the ones from the states he won should be voting for him.

If that happened, he would go from being mathematically eliminated from the nomination to almost having a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination, which would be a big step up. At that point, he could realize that he misspoke when he said that the superdelegates should vote along with who their state voted for and come up with a different reason why more of Clinton's superdelegates should switch to him instead ... and also find a way to have the voters in the Democratic primaries be more interested in him so that he doesn't just straight-up lose by a large margin like he's doing now.
Click to expand...

If you apportion the superdelegates by who won a state, then that's a net negative for Sanders, since Clinton has won more states. What he wants is to turn as many superdelegates as it takes for him to win.

Sanders’s plan to win nomination by flipping super-delegates is a long shot - The Washington Post


First, Sanders said on CNN that he and his campaign will try to persuade un-pledged delegates — so-called “super-delegates,” who decide independent of the voting — to flip from supporting Clinton to supporting him instead, on the grounds that he is the more electable candidate in November.
..............
“I think we have to see where we are,” Devine said, adding that if Sanders were just behind Clinton in the pledged delegate count and had lost the popular vote, “we’re going to make an argument that you should nominate Bernie Sanders.”
Click to expand...

Which is a flip flop for Sanders and his supporters from their prior position that superdelegates were undemocratic. And considering that superdelegates are largely comprised of the reviled party establishment, it's delusionally ballsy for him to expect them to run to his side.

There is no way superdelegates would override the pledged delegate results, whoever would have won (barring a very close result and a clown show candidate on top like Trump).
 
What do you mean it's a net negative? Clinton has 90-some percent of them. Sanders peeling off a portion puts him way ahead of where he is now. If he succeeds on that, he'd then come up with a completely different rationale as to why the ones from Clinton's states should then join him as well, despite what he'd argued the week before.
 
That was quick, first Ted Cruz and now John Kasich, leaving Donald Trump.

Who's in and who's out:

Republican:
Ted Cruz: 2015 Mar 23 - 2016 May 3
Rand Paul: 2015 Apr 7 - 2016 Feb 3
Marco Rubio: 2015 Apr 13 - 2016 Mar 15
Ben Carson: 2015 May 3 - 2016 Mar 4
Carly Fiorina: 2015 May 4 - 2016 Feb 11
Mike Huckabee: 2015 May 5 - 2016 Feb 1
Rick Santorum: 2015 May 27 - 2016 Feb 3
George Pataki: 2015 May 28 - 2015 Dec 29
Lindsey Graham: 2015 Jun 1 - 2015 Dec 21
Rick Perry: 2015 Jun 4 - 2015 Sep 11
Jeb Bush: 2015 Jun 15 - 2016 Feb 20
Donald Trump: 2015 Jun 16 -
Bobby Jindal: 2015 Jun 24 - 2015 Nov 17
Chris Christie: 2015 Jun 30 - 2016 Feb 11
Scott Walker: 2015 Jul 13 - 2015 Sep 21
John Kasich: 2015 Jul 21 - 2016 May 4
Jim Gilmore: 2015 Jul 29 - 2016 Feb 12

Democratic:
Hillary Clinton: 2015 Apr 12 -
Bernie Sanders: 2015 Apr 30 -
Martin O'Malley: 2015 May 30 - 2016 Feb 1
Lincoln Chafee: 2015 June 3 - 2015 Oct 23
Jim Webb: 2015 Jul 2 - 2015 Oct 2
Lawrence Lessig: 2015 Sep 6 - 2015 Nov 8
 
angelo said:
Would Trump generate so much negative chatter had he been running for the Democrat nomination?
Click to expand...

No. His campaign would have been over last summer and nobody would have talked about him because the Dems haven't spent the past 20 years catering to the type of racist and hateful bullshit that Trump has been spouting.
 
I have never bet on politics before but I just backed Bernie Sanders at 34 to 1.

I think Trump could beat Hillary Clinton. He is a formidable opponent. He just demonstrated that, but I don't think is would necessarily beat Sanders.
He will attack Clinton as she is part of the corrupt establishment, and that could work, but he won't have the same leverage against Sanders.

34 to 1 seems ok. Pressure on Hillary will only get hotter from here on in
 
angelo said:
Would Trump generate so much negative chatter had he been running for the Democrat nomination?
Click to expand...
It frightens me how little you understand about American politics, but yet seem quite happy to offer your opinions anyway.
 
Will Wiley said:
I have never bet on politics before but I just backed Bernie Sanders at 34 to 1.

I think Trump could beat Hillary Clinton. He is a formidable opponent. He just demonstrated that, but I don't think is would necessarily beat Sanders.
He will attack Clinton as she is part of the corrupt establishment, and that could work, but he won't have the same leverage against Sanders.

34 to 1 seems ok. Pressure on Hillary will only get hotter from here on in
Click to expand...
The pressure has been on her for a few decades now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom