|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Entire message 358 of NoNukes
quote: Now for my actual post (which was #357).
quote: My point is that from the beginning, the media has assured us that Hillary has a "500" delegate lead" and "can't be stopped". After Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada Bernie had gotten more votes but the media was talking like it was nearly over because she has 450 or so more delegates. Then she crushed him in South Carolina and they talked about how Bernie needed 60% of all remaining delegates to win even though there were only 4 states (with 3% of the population) having voted. Then came Super Tuesday. Bernie won Oklahoma, Vermont, Colorado, and Minnesota. Hillary won 7 states (6 southern ones plus Massachusetts). 15 states voted. With about 30% of the population. Hillary won 10 (Iowa and Massachusetts very narrowly) Bernie won 5 by at least 11 points each. But Hillary had this big lead of something like 1000/1100 to 400 because of a 465 to 25 or something lead among the super delegates. "Bernie needs like 65% of remaining delegates to win, the revolution is over". It is over they tell us. Now the nation thinks "silly old Bernie can't win" (people were saying that from the start) Before the race began (way back in September 2015), everybody had been saying the same thing. "He is too old, I'm supporting Trump." "Sanders isn't bad, just too old, I'm voting for Trump". "Only Trump can take on the establishment". "Sanders ain't going to win". "He will die in office". I heard that a trillion times way back before 2016! And all through January. As soon as the voting started, the Democratic establishment (and the media) was ready to invoke the "Big Hillary delegate lead" and call the race. Compare this to what Fowler jr. said back in 2011.
quote: How can anybody, no matter how smug, claim that the super delegates didn't slow down (if not trample all over) Bernie Sanders? This Democratic primary has been about the biggest joke of a "democratic" process one can imagine. They gave 15% of the delegates (or at least a net of 10% anyway) to Clinton right from the start. The media was happy to sell the narrative (big shock). And even more convenient that the primaries were front loaded with southern states (one can offer a straw-man joke about whether that was a deliberate conspiracy, but understand that the issue should be one of perspective - that being the media preferred perspective is to say "it's all over for any Bernie momentum after Hillary clobbered him early down south" and the non-corrupt perspective that less favorable, to Hillary, non-southern states should have their say without this "it's all over" b.s.) Fowler claimed that superdelegates would change their minds based on the eventual pledged delegate (Democratic primary/caucus voter decided) outcome, but the media coverage has been to mock Bernie when he suggests that he only needed (till recently) around 55% , and not 73% of remaining delegates because, as he argued, he could get the Hillary supporting (unelected)Super Delegates to change their minds if he won their states (which would essentially be evening the superdelegates and relegating them to a complete wash and neither a net benefit or loss for either candidate). Here is my google link which shows media reaction to the suggestion of Bernie that the Super Delegates would change their minds. Google I guess Bernie was the "unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate" Fowler jr. warned us about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes. Wrong. My characterization of your post was dead on. According to your post, which described "suffering through" southern states, and then emphasized the count that Bernie had absent the southern states conveyed exactly the message I attacked in my post. I have yet to see any explanation of why your statements, placed in any context, are justifiable.
My point is that from the beginning, the media has assured us that Hillary has a "500" delegate lead" and "can't be stopped". Then you made a bad point on your way to trying to make your point. I could say the same thing about the media telling us about Bernie winning 8 of 9 tiny states as being some threat to Hilary despite the fact her performance so far has been pretty much as expected. Yes there has been some over hyping of Hilary and some media favoring of her over Bernie, but talking about 11 losses in southern states as though that kind of performance is somehow excusable or not worthy of comment is simply wrong. It certainly does not make your point about any media excesses or downplaying of Bernie. It was just bogus. Bernie appeals to people whose mindsets are most like my own. But the fact that such appeal is not sufficient to win the democratic primary is not much of a surprise to me. Nor is it much of a surprise that the Democratic establishment feels the same way. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
There was just a Pew poll that showed that 45% of Bernie supporters and 38% of Trump supporters felt that our international involvement made the world worse.
Only 28% of Hillary supporters did. The nation was 34%. (60% on the opposite end) Hillary supporters are more hawkish than the national average.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
This Democratic primary has been about the biggest joke of a "democratic" process one can imagine. Except it was never intended to be a "democratic" process in the extreme sense you are trying to make it. The process is intended to offer up the nominee of the Democratic Party not the nominee of the American people writ large. And the Democratic Party is the leadership of the party put in their positions by the party base not the American people writ large. The sooner people understand what a political party really is the sooner this conspiracy tripe can end. Edited by AZPaul3, : tighpoe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
15% of the vote is rigged.
Might as well say Sanders needs to win 50% out of the remaining 85%. Or 59% to 41% of the voters. Democratic voters need to vote nearly 3 to 2 to defeat the "one whose turn it is" as decided by an out of touch bunch of elites. One person equals one vote in the democratic primary. But. But. But. You need to win 1.5 to 1 to win. This wasn't what Fowler jr. told us back in 2011 (see article). Unless one ones to assume that Sanders fit the mold of that dangerous insurgent candidate. Like Larouche, he is anti-war (not quite as much as the strict pacifist Larouche), so that makes him a dangerous radical. We were not sold this super delegate bowl of goods on the notion that Sanders was unfit to be President according to the all-knowing Democratic elites. And they called Larouche a "right-wing fascist" anyway (aside from his odd stance on HIV in the 1980s, nothing could be further from the truth), so who knows what the standard is? I want to know what exactly made Sanders unfit for a simple majority of Democrats to be trusted? Why does he need a super majority of (Democratic - Capital D) voters to win?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I want to know what exactly made Sanders unfit for a simple majority of Democrats to be trusted? Why does he need a super majority of (Democratic - Capital D) voters to win? First, Bernie, and I really like Bernie, is too far to the left of the Democratic Party to garner the support needed to win the nomination of the party. Second, Hillary has that support and will skate into Philadelphia to accept the nomination based on pledged delegates alone.
15% of the vote is rigged. Conspiracy nut. 15% are super delegates. They are all the Democratic Party members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, all serving Democratic Party Governors of states, the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party in each state and the members of the Democratic Leadership Council and the Democratic Party National Committee. They were chosen because of their position. They are not chosen because they like Hillary. That is not "rigged". They are free to support anyone they so chose. That is not "rigged". This is the leadership of the party exercising some modicum of control over who best represents the philosophy and agenda of the Democratic Party. That is not "rigged"' Because of her philosophy, her history, her work and her strength, a majority of those supers are supporting Hillary. That's not "rigged". That is the party voice. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
There was just a Pew poll that showed that 45% of Bernie supporters and 38% of Trump supporters felt that our international involvement made the world worse. Only 28% of Hillary supporters did The nation was 34%. (60% on the opposite end) Hillary supporters are more hawkish than the national average. The response is not solely about wars. In fact some of the people who complain about Obama complain about his failure to fight wars. This particular question may be more nuanced than you are letting on. I'm not saying that Hilary supporters are not more hawkish, but this question may not probe that directly. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The sooner people understand what a political party really is the sooner this conspiracy tripe can end. Given this reality, I think it is interesting to think about what the GOP might do at the convention if Trump falls short of 1200 delegates. Is it really a forgone conclusion that the GOP would pick Cruz given the ability to avoid Trump? How much of the party actually embraces Cruz? Is the answer none of the Senate, only the tea party faction of the House, and a paltry few Governors? Just how did the GOP allow their house to get into such an order? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Is it really a forgone conclusion that the GOP would pick Cruz given the ability to avoid Trump? How much of the party actually embraces Cruz? Just how did the GOP allow their house to get into such an order? What is it with the hard questions? Haven't you got any easy questions that don't take a massive tome to answer? Good lord, where to start. Start with the last one.
Just how did the GOP allow their house to get into such an order? The quick and woefully understated easy answer to that has to do with the conservative realignment in the party in the 70-80's. From there the evangelicals grew into the leadership positions in the party with no thought to keeping a moderate base energized. The Republican liberal wing had all but disappeared by 1990 and the moderate center has been on the ropes since 2000. At this point the party is flirting with the extremes of the American right. Romney may be the last of the moderate conservatives we see from the Republicans unless the center can reassert itself after this 2016 disaster. Don't count on it.
Is it really a forgone conclusion that the GOP would pick Cruz given the ability to avoid Trump? How much of the party actually embraces Cruz? The Republican's may be in for an unpleasant surprise come June 7. Looking at the poll numbers for Indiana (primary May 3), Trumps lead is not large but may be solid. If he can keep up this lead and win Indiana then, come California and New Jersey, June 7, he may have the 1237 delegates needed going into Cleveland. This scenario is looking more likely than it did just a week ago. This leads, then, to a battle royal in the convention where we will see the leadership try to exert its influence (a bit late there, guys) with major rules changes coming off the rules committee to be fought (maybe literally) on the convention floor. At that point, yes, I think the Republican leadership would rather hold their collective noses and embarrassingly, grudgingly, accept Cruz. If the leadership can hang the convention after the blood dries and the walkouts occur there is always the slim chance of a compromise candidate. Paul Ryan has said not just no, but hell no, leaving Rich Perry licking his lips and Jeb Bush kinda bouncing on the balls of his feet. The thing is the Republican leadership does not have the level of control it once did just a few years ago with so many staunch partisans on the convention floor. Because of this I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the leadership, stripped down by those abandoning the party altogether, Trump or Cruz doesn't matter, just accepted the fact that Hillary will be our next president. Fuck me, I don't know. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 482 Joined:
|
I'll never understand the way you choose your party candidates in the US.
Basically any one can run for whatever party he or she wants to, and if they win the primaries, theyll represent that party..That just does not make any sense. In DK, and most other countries, the leader of the party is the candidate for president/prime minister. They have usually worked their way up through party ranks to get to that position. The current primeminster of DK, begun his political career in the youth branch of his party in '86. 12 years later he held his first political office as mayor, then minister of health, then minister of finance. He was active in the party for 23 years before becomming leader of the party.That just makes sense imo. Trump doesnt really represent the republican party, neither does Cruz. Why not an actual tea party, instead of shanghaiing the republican party? Edited by Shield, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I haven't done the most excellent job of explaining the US Presidential Primary system. I found this on the net and think this does a much better job than I could possibly do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: If you were any candidate’s supporter I wouldn’t want you anywhere near the campaign because you are a trolling dunderhead who would piss everyone off with your insults and conspiracy tripe and lose us the good people that would otherwise support us. Did I touch a nerve? You sound like one of the Caucus coercers that I mention in an earlier post. Link -->
Clinton Condemns Alleged Coercion of Caucusgoers - CBS News
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
What is it with the hard questions? Sorry about that. Here is a softball question. Just what is accomplished by picking Fiorina as a running mate? Just what constituency does that tap into? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
NN writes: Just what is accomplished by picking Fiorina as a running mate? Just what constituency does that tap into? It will appeal to the constituency that is looking for a candidate that has exhibited the ability to run a functioning organization into the ground while protecting their own ass(ets) other than il Donald.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Did I touch a nerve? No, no, no, not at all. It's just that there are some people in this world that do not play well with the rest of humanity and are more prone to chaff then soothe. That's you. Like Big_TO. Terrell Owens was a great receiver, but was poison to every locker room he ever walked into, destroying team morale and cohesion wherever he went. There are just some people you never want anywhere near your team because they destroy the spirit, undercut your efforts, and lose you the game. That's you. Now, I really think it would be best if you got off the computer and attended to those three kids. And, for god's sake, clean up your house!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024