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 April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
On April 28 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote: There's a ton of room for American allies to spend more on their own defense. Most of these countries are spending less than 2% of their GDP on defense, which is pathetic. It is inarguable that they get away with this because they know that they have the US to rely upon.
In the pacific region maybe but in Europe which this criticism is mostly addressed at I don't think the alliance makes that much of a difference. Russia rolled over Ukraine anyway and strategically we're already backed up by French and British nuclear power and conventional armies are stronger anyway, at least collectively. Apart from Russia there's pretty much no strategic threat to Europe. If anything the US profits more from the influence they have on Europe than anybody in Europe does.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws that has been softballed by the Dems and Republicans this entire cycle, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
The only realistic chance that Bernie becomes the nominee is "politicized email non-scandal" being made actual scandal by the FBI.
National security incompetence is hardly a "politicized email non-scandel" Especially when its gone full FBI investigation.
but yeah her getting indicted is probably bernies last hope. I would really be interested in seeing what actually ends of that investigation because if it takes too long and she gets indicted after the nomination things are going to be very awkward around the DNC. So I guess its not that unreasonable for bernie to stay in if anything for the parties benifit at this point.
On April 28 2016 03:36 Introvert wrote: Cruz should have waited until after IN. Before looks too desperate (because it is). Before CA makes more sense, given Fiorina's connection to the state. I don't see how this helps on IN, and if he loses IN it's over anyway.
He already lost his identity when he pulled this Kasich disaster. He could not possibly be framing himself as "politician who is trying various things to somehow win" any more than he currently is.
And let's not forget the loser effect. We are going to see the same thing we saw in CT with Bernie. People just fucking sad about the whole thing and losing hope. It takes a lot more...courage(?) to vote for someone when they are a huuuuuge underdog. Seeing Trump hit multiple 60%'s in states in the week before IN is just...damning, IMO.
Cruz tries calling in Kasich --> gets sub-20% votes in 5 states --> tries calling Fiorina --> hopes for better? There is just such a massive loss in perceived strength by doing that. People want to rally behind someone strong. These recent stunts eliminated any perceived strength Cruz may have once had.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Honestly, this is just weird to read. Things keep going so wildly differently from what you predict. I really think you need to step back for a moment and look at the situation. It's like you are actually viewing different numbers next to each state. How many delegates do you think Bernie and Clinton each have right now?
Thr situation is perilous, but you are framing what happened with Kasich incorrectly.
I do think the biggest danger for Cruz is discouragement of supporters. I suppose that might be one of the reasons for this announcement today. Fiorina has been an effective surrogate, esp in places like WI.
On April 28 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote: There's a ton of room for American allies to spend more on their own defense. Most of these countries are spending less than 2% of their GDP on defense, which is pathetic. It is inarguable that they get away with this because they know that they have the US to rely upon.
I'm sure that factors in, but part of it is undoubtedly that a lot of those countries are in Europe, which has a rather safe buffer around it since the USSR collapsed. Other than China deciding to invade, all of Europe is quite safe with regards to traditional warfare. And when it comes to asymmetric warfare, money plays a rather tiny part in the whole matter. As IRA, ETA, Hamas, Al`Quaeda and ISIS have shown repeatedly, it is quite easy to inflict serious damage on crowded civilian spaces with low tech, low cost equipment.
That is a valid criticism of some of our allies, but yelling at them to spend more and making it conditional on US intervention is not going to work. They will either A: Claim they will in won’t do it. Or B: not agree and just seek alliances someplace else. And if we don’t provide security support, we risk destabilizing whatever region this takes place in. And letting regions become destabilized to force the EU to step up their security game has some pretty serious flaws, some of which we are seeing right now.
On April 28 2016 03:36 Introvert wrote: Cruz should have waited until after IN. Before looks too desperate (because it is). Before CA makes more sense, given Fiorina's connection to the state. I don't see how this helps on IN, and if he loses IN it's over anyway.
He already lost his identity when he pulled this Kasich disaster. He could not possibly be framing himself as "politician who is trying various things to somehow win" any more than he currently is.
And let's not forget the loser effect. We are going to see the same thing we saw in CT with Bernie. People just fucking sad about the whole thing and losing hope. It takes a lot more...courage(?) to vote for someone when they are a huuuuuge underdog. Seeing Trump hit multiple 60%'s in states in the week before IN is just...damning, IMO.
Cruz tries calling in Kasich --> gets sub-20% votes in 5 states --> tries calling Fiorina --> hopes for better? There is just such a massive loss in perceived strength by doing that. People want to rally behind someone strong. These recent stunts eliminated any perceived strength Cruz may have once had.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Honestly, this is just weird to read. Things keep going so wildly differently from what you predict. I really think you need to step back for a moment and look at the situation. It's like you are actually viewing different numbers next to each state. How many delegates do you think Bernie and Clinton each have right now?
Thr situation is perilous, but you are framing what happened with Kasich incorrectly.
I do think the biggest danger for Cruz is discouragement of supporters. I suppose that might be one of the reasons for this announcement today. Fiorina has been an effective surrogate, esp in places like WI.
I read it as an "all-in" on the abortion issue. Fiorina lied and lied and lied about the Planned Parenthood videos, even after confronted with the truth. Her commitment to the cause was never rattled by the facts. That kind of post-truth thinking may help in Indiana. Not sure Cali Republicans are ready to swallow that though.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
edit: What am I saying. ofcourse you don't realize that, you wouldnt keep making these fairy tale posts if you did.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
edit: What am I saying. ofcourse you don't realize that, you wouldnt keep making these fairy tale posts if you did.
She is also ahead in the popular vote by like 3 million. The super delegates are not going to overturn the popular vote or her majority in the non-super delegates.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
Wow. Ok. You actually believe this. Err...
Let me break this down. There are over 1000 delegates still to be pledged through primaries. At this point, Clinton only needs ~250 more delegates to have already cinched the delegates through her current totals and currently endorsed superdelegates. This is how much closer she is to nomination than Bernie is. Superdelegates overwhelmingly do not vote against the popular/delegate majority leaders. Any notion to the contrary is really just fantasy.
She does not need to win 60% of the remaining delegates, unless she absolutely wants to blow out Bernie, but she has no need.
The FBI investigation will go nowhere if we look at any remotely relevant precedent, and is just one of a long list of manufactured scandals that the Republicans have made against her and been trying to press her on. See the long-running (and publicly admitted by Congressional Republicans) political circus that is Benghazi.
Meanwhile, Bernie is an admitted socialist who honeymooned in the USSR, and has not been pressed at all by Republican campaigns and superPACs who see him as a useful tool to weaken the Democratic front-runner and presumptive nominee.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
Wow. Ok. You actually believe this. Err...
Let me break this down. There are over 1000 delegates still to be pledged through primaries. At this point, Clinton only needs ~250 more delegates to have already cinched the delegates through her current totals and currently endorsed superdelegates. This is how much closer she is to nomination than Bernie is. Superdelegates overwhelmingly do not vote against the popular/delegate majority leaders. Any notion to the contrary is really just fantasy.
She does not need to win 60% of the remaining delegates, unless she absolutely wants to blow out Bernie, but she has no need.
The FBI investigation will go nowhere if we look at any remotely relevant precedent, and is just one of a long list of manufactured scandals that the Republicans have made against her and been trying to press her on. See the long-running (and publicly admitted by Congressional Republicans) political circus that is Benghazi.
Meanwhile, Bernie is an admitted socialist who honeymooned in the USSR, and has not been pressed at all by Republican campaigns and superPACs who see him as a useful tool to weaken the Democratic front-runner and presumptive nominee.
Many supers (particularly the ones who want to keep their job) are open to the idea of supporting whoever their state picked. I'd note that Warren still hasn't endorsed (along with hundreds of other supers) if this thing was over, she'd have all the supers and they would just call it. They obviously haven't endorsed her still for reasons that they haven't made clear.
Also, when did House Republicans take control of the FBI?
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
I think everyone knows where the confusion is here. And it’s not really confusion, more like a willing state of self delusion. But the cure is in a couple months when this is all over.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
You can't frame your statements about objective people when you're the most biased person on the board. Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
Well those are objective facts (as much as all polls can be anyway), no matter who says them, so Hillary supporters can dismiss them at their own peril.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
1. Define "independent" in terms more useful than "not registered with either party", because that ranges from tinfoil hat libertarians to raging communists, and we'll have a discussion.
2. Clearly the person who is losing the popular vote by 3million is the stronger general election candidate... at least, in Bernie's pink unicorn lalaland. Is Clinton going to have a battle in the general election? Probably. However, given the votes so far, I don't think there is much doubt that Clinton has a better chance than Bernie, if only because she has significantly broader support from her own base, and the center. Bernie has more support to the left, but there are simply fewer people on the left (as evidenced by the popular support lead).
3. What opposing trends? Clinton's performance throughout the election seems pretty stable. Unless curbstomping Bernie in PA is somehow a sign that she is losing support...
4. She is weak to attack ads about her trustworthiness. All candidates have weaknesses. Trump, for instance, has ridiculously small hands (and we all know what that means -Rubio, 2016), and Bernie is a filthy communist.
On April 28 2016 02:40 amazingxkcd wrote: Trump's foreign policy speech was pure and utter bliss.
Explain.
I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed about that speech, the speechwriters or Trump himself. Even if you look beyond the jarring shifts between college-level rhetoric and fourth grade level rhetoric, the blatant hypocrisy throughout, combined with a lack of details is pathetic at best and dangerous at worst.
There's literally so much wrong with it that it will take a paper to explain it all. Suffice to say that his core two points, That we need to have better relationships with our allies and also the fact that they have to treat us better "or else", is contradictory.
On top of that, How do people continue to take Serious b******* arguments like "I will do it to the best trust me."
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws that has been softballed by the Dems and Republicans this entire cycle, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
The only realistic chance that Bernie becomes the nominee is "politicized email non-scandal" being made actual scandal by the FBI.
National security incompetence is hardly a "politicized email non-scandel" Especially when its gone full FBI investigation.
but yeah her getting indicted is probably bernies last hope. I would really be interested in seeing what actually ends of that investigation because if it takes too long and she gets indicted after the nomination things are going to be very awkward around the DNC. So I guess its not that unreasonable for bernie to stay in if anything for the parties benifit at this point.
The practice of using personal emails in the State department has been set since Colin Powell. If you want to call the practice insecure, you'd have to deal with State Department policies on the matter which has allowed for it.
You also have to deal with the mitigating factors. One that our system of classification is severely antiquated and the practice of overclassification is rampant. Information that is publicly known and available can be classified, or info that is useless and will be irrelevant in a day can be classified and remain so until it expires. The other is that state department/government email servers have already been penetrated by hackers and the Russian government, and the latter has not been known to have done so with the Clinton server, so you need to demonstrate that the move to a different server entailed drastically greater risks (which is unlikely).
Beyond this, any indictment and investigation has to show and prove that the act was done with the deliberate intention to spread classified information and demonstrate it was a severe breach of national security. This is the case with Petraeus, where he actually did hand classified information knowingly to his mistress/biographer, and was charged (with a slap on the wrist). I have no idea how anyone can prove that using her own personal email was done to deliberately share classified info, or prove it was a major national security risk given the mitigating factors. Then you have to deal with the fact any punishment (assuming a successful indictment, and that requires the Justice Department to push it if the FBI forwards it) would be less than that of the much more egregious and clear-cut case of Petraeus, and then you realize that this entire email scandal is just one of a long list of republican-manufactured mud they're flinging at her.
EPT
