US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3799

On May 12 2016 23:24 Mohdoo wrote:
Everyone who supported Zimmerman sinking in their chairs right now lol

On May 13 2016 00:28 killa_robot wrote:


Can't really blame him for acting like this. I'm sure he's received countless death threats, and if he was at all innocent then that would piss most people off enough to act as obnoxious as he is now.

On May 13 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm more impressed that Trump dispatched the entire draft class of supposed Republican dream candidates without a coherent economic plan

On May 13 2016 02:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:

Ehhh he ran against a heavily flawed field. Cruz was almost as anti distasteful for the establishment gop as Trump (if he was the one with a massive lead I bet the gop would have backed Trump), Rubio and Kasich were far too milquetoast, Jeb has the wrong last name and seemed to be going through the motions instead of actually wanting to win, Carson was too crazy, Fiorina was actually a pretty terrible ceo and not a very good candidate, Christie went a bridge too far in his handling of dissent in New Jersey. This year was a best case scenario for Trump.

On May 13 2016 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:


Funny, before Trump jumped in pretty sure most of the conservatives here were arguing it was the strongest field of candidates in a long time.

On May 12 2016 18:07 Keniji wrote:


Hasn't Sanders won almost all states that had a higher turn-out than 2008? To suggest that a low turnout is good for Sanders is an odd statement.

On May 13 2016 02:53 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Not sure how he can claim that when hes still down several million in the popular vote

On May 13 2016 02:36 Jaaaaasper wrote:
The GOP has said that all 3 post bush primaries. You have to say that you have great candidates, even if you don't believe it, to get yourself and your base fired up, and the base buys it at least at first. And I hope you weren't calling me one of those conservatives. Assuming that Hillary wins and has 8 years as president with out at least one very strong candidate, the democrats will say the same thing.

On May 13 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


Lol I love that they show that Hillary hasn't won ANY contests with increases in turnout over 08. What they are saying is "mostly false" is the "lose when turnout is low" part, not the "win when turnout is high" part. Not your fault though, they wrote it to give off the impression you got, even if it's the wrong one.


Because he's won every state that had more voters vote than in 08

On May 13 2016 03:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:


Bernie won only 5 states with a voter turn out higher than 34%, Hilary won 16.

But if you want to be more selective, Hilary won 6 states that had turnout higher than 50%, while Bernie only won 4.

Hilary wins more when the turn out is high, Bernie wins more when the turnout is low. Bernie won elevent states with less than 34% voter attendance, Hilary won only two.

On May 13 2016 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:


Except she lost every race where turnout was up. It's clearly an oversimplification, but it's indisputable that where turnout increased, Bernie won.

The data your using is silly because it's comparing caucus turnout to GE turnout, so it's not reflective of whether that's a high turnout or low turnout for it's particular process.

Hillary won 13 out of 15 of the states with the biggest drop in participation over 08. Bernie won every state with an increase in turnout over 08. Taking that information and saying "we win when turnout is high, we lose when it is low" is a fair statement (albeit an oversimplification).