|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 16 2016 21:37 Kipsate wrote:
Bernie Sanders would win if Reddit/Social media was representative of the American population, but it isn't. According to that Bernie is the next coming of the Messiah and Hillary the spawn of Satan. The internet just created a bit of a bubble thinking that Bernie Sanders has a really great shot.
Agreed, and I think this is why we see Bernie bots continue to be so committed. They don't see plain and simple failure. People don't believe in Bernie. Simple as that.
|
On March 16 2016 20:22 DickMcFanny wrote:
A "huge favourite"?
This race is over, Trump has won. Hillary can't possibly win, voter turnout for republicans is on the highest level in 48 years.
And he hasn't even started on her yet.
Voter turnout is highest in the primaries...and only ~37% of the people think Trump should be the nominee. And yesterday 37% of the Republicans exit polled said that they would seriously consider a third party if Trump won the nomination. How exactly people are convinced this bodes well for his general chances is beyond me, as always.
(it's towards the bottom of http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-15-primaries-ohio-florida-results-presidential-election-2016/)
He also probably would have lost Missouri and NC without Rubio in the race. The reality distortion field is something amazing these days.
|
It's not the "American population" Sanders is at odds with, it's the current "voting population".
|
Primaries are not the general elections. Only 25% of the population identify as republican. 36% as democrat. The rest of independent and the overwhelming majority of them did not vote.
|
On March 16 2016 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's not the "American population" Sanders is at odds with, it's the current "voting population".
You say this as if it means anything. He can't win an election, end of story.
By my shitty morning math calculations, in order to win the nomination, Sanders now needs to beat Clinton by an average of 14% in every remaining state.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 16 2016 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's not the "American population" Sanders is at odds with, it's the current "voting population".
he'd get rekt worse in a general
|
On March 16 2016 22:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's not the "American population" Sanders is at odds with, it's the current "voting population". You say this as if it means anything. He can't win an election, end of story. By my shitty morning math calculations, in order to win the nomination, Sanders now needs to beat Clinton by an average of 14% in every remaining state.
I ended up with the same last night, but other people are quoting 58%. Are they banking on all super delegates going to Bernie's camp?
|
On March 16 2016 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 22:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2016 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's not the "American population" Sanders is at odds with, it's the current "voting population". You say this as if it means anything. He can't win an election, end of story. By my shitty morning math calculations, in order to win the nomination, Sanders now needs to beat Clinton by an average of 14% in every remaining state. I ended up with the same last night, but other people are quoting 58%. Are they banking on all super delegates going to Bernie's camp?
Well winning by 14% means winning 57 to 43%. My calculation wasn't with the exactly right number of delegates, so it's pretty much the same.
|
On March 16 2016 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 22:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2016 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's not the "American population" Sanders is at odds with, it's the current "voting population". You say this as if it means anything. He can't win an election, end of story. By my shitty morning math calculations, in order to win the nomination, Sanders now needs to beat Clinton by an average of 14% in every remaining state. I ended up with the same last night, but other people are quoting 58%. Are they banking on all super delegates going to Bernie's camp?
Probably refering to a 58:42 split? (57:43 would be +14 but make them even, I guess he has to really overtake)
|
On March 16 2016 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 22:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2016 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's not the "American population" Sanders is at odds with, it's the current "voting population". You say this as if it means anything. He can't win an election, end of story. By my shitty morning math calculations, in order to win the nomination, Sanders now needs to beat Clinton by an average of 14% in every remaining state. I ended up with the same last night, but other people are quoting 58%. Are they banking on all super delegates going to Bernie's camp?
I think for Bernie to win all remaining states 58-42 (as 538 says he needs) there would have to be a Clinton meltdown going on that would likely turn off the superdelegates.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Basically short of Clinton actually being indicted or her suffering a stroke it ain't happening.
|
On March 16 2016 22:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 22:11 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 16 2016 22:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2016 22:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's not the "American population" Sanders is at odds with, it's the current "voting population". You say this as if it means anything. He can't win an election, end of story. By my shitty morning math calculations, in order to win the nomination, Sanders now needs to beat Clinton by an average of 14% in every remaining state. I ended up with the same last night, but other people are quoting 58%. Are they banking on all super delegates going to Bernie's camp? I think for Bernie to win all remaining states 58-42 (as 538 says he needs) there would have to be a Clinton meltdown going on that would likely turn off the superdelegates.
it is generally believed that the super delegates will vote for whoever holds the majority in the end.
|
Man, The Sanders subreddit is downright depressing right now.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iLjiXlb.png)
So many posts of poor college students sending their rent money to a dead campaign.
|
So Bernie campaign is a sneaky tax on the poor? /s
|
Well, at least they express their dissatisfaction with the current financial system.
We didn't abolish slavery over night, we didn't abolish feudalism in one go, and we won't abolish capitalism without major effort.
|
Boehner endorses Ryan for president.
Bizarre.
|
On March 16 2016 22:53 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Boehner endorses Ryan for president.
Bizarre.
...
This election just keeps on getting more insane.
|
On March 03 2016 07:07 farvacola wrote:A little birdie who personally knows Paul Ryan told me that there is discussion among the Republican establishment as to Ryan's nomination should Trump be the presumptive nominee come convention time. Should be fun 
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Isn't it far too late to be getting a new canidate? Or is this some Republican convention structure that I am not aware of.
|
On March 16 2016 23:11 Kipsate wrote:
Isn't it far too late to be getting a new canidate? Or is this some Republican convention structure that I am not aware of.
My understanding is that the RNC could nominate anyone they please at the convention.
Not so sure Ryan is exactly a strong choice, though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
