Elections 2016 Democratic/GOP Super Tuesday Primary Thread

[SouthoftheAndes]

Yep, they can, as they are not committed. They, most often, are vulnerable to the whims of the popular vote. For instance, Obama was similarly down (not to the same extent of course, since he was an actual Democrat) in superdelegates in 2008 to Hillary before it became obvious he'd win the popular vote. Then, many switched. The party realizes awarding a nomination contrary to a popular vote in GE suicide.

This doesn't change the fact that having superdelegates of any sizable proportion of the total delegates is silly and potentially undemocratic.

They aren't switching anytime soon. Never before have this many endorsed a candidate and hardly any friends Bernie. It is pretty obvious that most party officials and elected politicians in America do not like Bernie from what I can see.

Oh and Hillary won the popular vote in 2008

They can, this happened in 08. Clinton had a huge superdelegates lead, but because obama won the popular delegate vote by 120 delegates, some of them had to change their vote, or else the DNC would have been accused of King making. It is suicide for superdelegates to decide the election for the DNC.

For some reason people are in denial. Bernie is 100x different than Obama of 2008 or 2007. Obama had way more delegates, and superdelegates than Bernie especially as a %. And Hillary didn't have this massive of a lead with Superdelegates.

And finally Obama never won the popular vote in the end. He lost the popular vote and won because of delegates namely superdelegates.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

One thing interesting to note that hasn't been mentioned: Trump losses are in caucus states. Iowa, Minnesota, Alaska. He is crushing it in primary states (Texas was to be expected for Cruz. OK is the anomaly).

I've participated in caucuses, your vote is very apparent, you must stand accountable before your peers. You will be judged based on your stance in the community. My theory? Trump plays poorly in caucus states as he is a guilty pleasure. People will vote for him in an anonymous primary but not a caucus format. Look for this trend to continue.

 

[mrsenor]

Many have tried, but all have failed to stump him. Most have wound up stumped or even schlonged for their boldness.

First there was Jeb. Despite the massive amount of money spend and establishment support, Donald reduced him from former nominee apparent to a guac bowl meme.

Kasich tried his hand around the same time. It got him nowhere but laughed at as Trump pointed out his colossal incompetence at Lehman Brothers.

Rand Paul wound up being, in essence, dismissed as a manlet.

Clinton tried to play the gender card to stump him. To others, it would have been seen as a landmine to dodge. Trump saw it for a softball to lean in to and called her out for badmouthing bills accusers. Hillary shut her mouth because she's rather not see that pinata burst open.

The right wing media went after him with Glenn Beck getting chatty about Donald, but got blown the fuck out on live TV.

Now, Ted Cruz, who once found himself in the enviable position of likely Trump veep pick, decided he felt froggy. Trump unzipped his fly, and whipped out fourteen veiny inches of September 11th cock. A South Carolina crowd burst into a frenzy of applause for New York values. It might have been the most complete schlonging we've seen so far. Ted Cruz, in the span of about a minute went from being on the attack to applauding Trumps response. At this point, he may as well pack it in and run for prime minister of Canada next election. Hillary Clinton, herself a fan of the 911 card, even praised Trump on twitter. The whole fucking fiasco reads like a 4chan greentext... - AngryRedditorsBelow

 

[Lead]

That whole speech was awkward cause of Christie being right behind him showing little emotion. That guy acted like he got a lobotomy before getting on stage

 

[GearSolidMetal]

One thing interesting to note that hasn't been mentioned: Trump losses are in caucus states. Iowa, Minnesota, Alaska. He is crushing it in primary states (Texas was to be expected for Cruz. OK is the anomaly).

Nevada was a caucus state.

 

[Lead]

One thing interesting to note that hasn't been mentioned: Trump losses are in caucus states. Iowa, Minnesota, Alaska. He is crushing it in primary states (Texas was to be expected for Cruz. OK is the anomaly).

I've participated in caucuses, your vote is very apparent, you must stand accountable before your peers. You will be judged based on your stance in the community. My theory? Trump plays poorly in caucus states as he is a guilty pleasure. People will vote for him in an anonymous primary but not a caucus format. Look for this trend to continue.

I've somewhat noticed this too outside of the forum. Maybe it's just my location or circle of people but I haven't heard one person say they support trump in person or through Facebook. Anytime he's brought up, it's in opposition. His support possibly is a silent majority. I've heard this with different reporters too saying people they talked to in a room were hesitant to mention their support of trump unless it was a one on one.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

One thing interesting to note that hasn't been mentioned: Trump losses are in caucus states. Iowa, Minnesota, Alaska. He is crushing it in primary states (Texas was to be expected for Cruz. OK is the anomaly).

I've participated in caucuses, your vote is very apparent, you must stand accountable before your peers. You will be judged based on your stance in the community. My theory? Trump plays poorly in caucus states as he is a guilty pleasure. People will vote for him in an anonymous primary but not a caucus format. Look for this trend to continue.

Caucuses are dumb in my opinion. They should do away with them.

 

[VivaRevolution]

They aren't switching anytime soon. Never before have this many endorsed a candidate and hardly any friends Bernie. It is pretty obvious that most party officials and elected politicians in America do not like Bernie from what I can see.

Oh and Hillary won the popular vote in 2008



For some reason people are in denial. Bernie is 100x different than Obama of 2008 or 2007. Obama had way more delegates, and superdelegates than Bernie especially as a %. And Hillary didn't have this massive of a lead with Superdelegates.

And finally Obama never won the popular vote in the end. He lost the popular vote and won because of delegates namely superdelegates.

Obama lost the popular vote. He won the awarded delegate count by 120 without superdelegates.

If those superdelegates would have hade the difference and nominated clinton over the will of the voters, there would have been riots in this country.

I'm not claiming bernie is obama, I am saying these situations are mirrored parallels.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

The Don is way more popular than people imagine.

To think he doesn't have a chance in the GE is silly. He will embarrass Hillary so bad, we'll realize Rosie O'Donnell got off easy.

 

[Gandhi]

Frankly, I don't really like the "poor whites are being tricked into voting against their interests" either. I think they vote against their *economic* interests because that's not their only interest. But anyway, I won't belabor it. I thought that was uncalled for and not something that is helping Bernie get black voters, and I'll leave it at that.

Except I think we would both agree that voting for their interests based on race is a parlor trick no. I mean its all empty last place aversion. I agree its not helping Bernie Bros at all to argue blacks are being uniformed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Except I think we would both agree that voting for their interests based on race is a parlor trick no. I mean its all empty last place aversion. I agree its not helping Bernie Bros at all to argue blacks are being uniformed.

We'd agree that they're not getting anything tangible, and that their support has been used to get a program that they are at best indifferent to (as I said in another thread, Jim Bob from Tennessee does not give two shits about cutting capital gains taxes). I don't think that leftists berating them for their decisions helps either (the left should sing "you don't win votes with contempt" to the tune of "you don't win friends with salad"). They know they're voting for someone who doesn't care about them, but at least they get to stick it to the eggheads who look down on them and minorities. That explains why their hate gov't so much.

One of Bernie's significant breakthroughs in this election is that unlike most leftist candidates, he's actually winning the poor vote--the people you'd think would be gimmies but almost never actually are. It's interesting how Clinton is getting the Obama voters from 2008--the typically Democratic combination of highly educated whites and blacks of all types.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

A lot of people were wrong on the dem side on the crime thing due to what was going on in the 90s, dems saw what happened and ajusted, Rs doubled down. Sure in the 90s some on the further left saw it as folly, but that was a purely ideological reaction, these same people would have nationalized all strategic industries, stopped all trade, and gazillion other things I think would be harmful. When one governs from the center mistakes get made and this was a big one.

I don't agree with you on trade in any event, so u only get a flip flop from me here on the TPP. On SSM she was ahead of Obama and btw since we are talking about blacks, they don't care so much about that issue, call them uninformed but they at best follow, the general population here.

Bernie has had the wrong message, blacks are not preoccupied with class but race issues. As my black studies teacher once said, to be poor is very hard, to be poor and black is HELL. B has not been speaking that language.

Bringing her vs. Obama is missing my point entirely. She is not using dog whistle racism against whites to get black votes so the argument that it just like Fox News breaks down. Where is her blatant identity politics that is brainwashing the Blackman to vote against his interests? Just maybe they don't care that B is ahead of everyone else on a class based agenda and buy the argument that Clinton will get it done.

The "they are misinformed" is a dangerous argument even when you use it against the backdrop of a decades old strategy to target voters based on race to propagate policy that is clearly detrimental to ones own interest a la the southern strategy. The parallel against one candidate who has real credentials based on a very subjective view of "I know best for the black man" is very very shaky.

Okay, a lot of people were wrong about the crime thing. Sanders wasn't. And not for fully ideological reasons, either. He cited the same issues then that people are up in arms about now. Its foresight and judgement and examining an issue as opposed to reacting to a problem with a knee jerk reaction. I don't know where you're going with the other stuff (nationalizing strategic industries, etc).

I disagree that he has the wrong message. Nobody else is talking about law enforcement and BLM the way Sanders is.
And, as Adolph Reed and Cornel West have attested to, Sanders platform is a laundry list of black issues.
How is Hillary Clinton addressing race differently than Sanders?

As for missing your point, are you suggesting that Sanders is using dog whistle racism to attract black voters?

The "they are misinformed" is a dangerous argument if you frame it as the only reason a demographic votes more for one candidate than another. Otherwise, it's not only a legit criticism (of any demographic, not just blacks) its almost certainly a factor for Clinton winning that demographic by such enormous margins.

And please don't strawman me with "I know whats best for the black man" or "blacks are misinformed". That is not my argument, and I've been clear on that from the beginning.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Obama lost the popular vote. He won the awarded delegate count by 120 without superdelegates.

If those superdelegates would have hade the difference and nominated clinton over the will of the voters, there would have been riots in this country.

I'm not claiming bernie is obama, I am saying these situations are mirrored parallels.

Don't care by your logic Hillary should be our president since she won the popular vote and since the GOP was going to lose anyways.

And again Obama and Bernie are far from similar. Again why do you ignore how much larger of a % of delegates and superdelegates Obama had compared to Bernie today? And why do you ignore how Obama had so many prominet endorsements and support of "establishment" figures after December of 2007 and Bernie has none? How do you also ignore Obama's superdelegate count and endorsements going back to August of 2007 which were higher than Bernies by a long shot?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Don't care by your logic Hillary should be our president since she won the popular vote and since the GOP was going to lose anyways.

And again Obama and Bernie are far from similar. Again why do you ignore how much larger of a % of delegates and superdelegates Obama had compared to Bernie today? And why do you ignore how Obama had so many prominet endorsements and support of "establishment" figures after December of 2007 and Bernie has none? How do you also ignore Obama's superdelegate count and endorsements going back to August of 2007 which were higher than Bernies by a long shot?

Because none of that is my point. If bernie wins the delegate count awarded by voters, he will win the nomination, because the DNC isn't suicidal. No one seems to have a rebuttal to this, and yet they keep talking about superdelegates.

As to your opinion on popular vote vs delegates, that is niether here nor there.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Okay, a lot of people were wrong about the crime thing. Sanders wasn't. And not for fully ideological reasons, either. He cited the same issues then that people are up in arms about now. Its foresight and judgement and examining an issue as opposed to reacting to a problem with a knee jerk reaction. I don't know where you're going with the other stuff (nationalizing strategic industries, etc).

I disagree that he has the wrong message. Nobody else is talking about law enforcement and BLM the way Sanders is.
And, as Adolph Reed and Cornel West have attested to, Sanders platform is a laundry list of black issues.
How is Hillary Clinton addressing race differently than Sanders?

As for missing your point, are you suggesting that Sanders is using dog whistle racism to attract black voters?

The "they are misinformed" is a dangerous argument if you frame it as the only reason a demographic votes more for one candidate than another. Otherwise, it's not only a legit criticism (of any demographic, not just blacks) its almost certainly a factor for Clinton winning that demographic by such enormous margins.

And please don't strawman me with "I know whats best for the black man" or "blacks are misinformed". That is not my argument, and I've been clear on that from the beginning.

You are not black are you? So why acting like you know it all and know how they should vote.

Keep pretending that Clinton can't get things done.

Crime bill made sense even black leaders where for it.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Because none of that is my point. If bernie wins the delegate count awarded by voters, he will win the nomination, because the DNC isn't suicidal. No one seems to have a rebuttal to this, and yet they keep talking about superdelegates.

As to your opinion on popular vote vs delegates, that is niether here nor there.

Oh I agree with that if he wins the delegant count.

However note A lot of superdelegates switched and supported Obama before hand. That creates momentum. Also, the first to pass the winning mark is likely to be nominee and Hillary already has 44% needed to win. And it's growing.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Oh I agree with that if he wins the delegant count.

However note A lot of superdelegates switched and supported Obama before hand. That creates momentum. Also, the first to pass the winning mark is likely to be nominee and Hillary already has 44% needed to win. And it's growing.

Only if you count those superdelegates, you just admitted don't really count, and only really exist to prevent another 68 convention, and ensure the dems never have another brokered convention.

Clinton has about a 200 delegate lead, without the superdelegates. Not quite the narrow path you keep hearing about huh?

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Only if you count those superdelegates, you just admitted don't really count, and only really exist to prevent another 68 convention, and ensure the dems never have another brokered convention.

Clinton has about a 200 delegate lead, without the superdelegates. Not quite the narrow path you keep hearing about huh?

Basically never before have this many superdelegates supported one candidate so heavily and avoided another.

Also, Clinton has won what 10 states?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You are not black are you? So why acting like you know it all and know how they should vote.

Keep pretending that Clinton can't get things done.

Crime bill made sense even black leaders where for it.

shoo fly

 

[xcvbn]

Oh so now if people don't vote for Bernie they have low IQs?

Please keep saying that louder and louder it will only hurt his campaign and make him disgusted by your behavior.


News flash Bernie doesn't want fans like you.

Uh, actually yeah.

Go look at the avg IQs in the states Clinton won then compare with the states Sanders won. Kinda funny that Sanders is the biggest champion of helping poor and dumb people, yet they're too poor and dumb to see beyond the Clinton campaign that is 75% funded by people who use and abuse those very same poor and dumb people.

Irony, ignorance, naivety, and stupidity are ridiculously strong in this election. You exposed yourself to which you're a part of lmao