After N.H. and Iowa, Bernie's only behind by 352 delegates.

[jackasa]

Stop shifting the goal posts already...

Hillary has presented more realistic goals
Sanders has not

That was my point. Not whether they'd get passed or not, but which ones were more realistic.

What to you is more realistic?
Universal healthcare or tweaks to the current system?

Okay then. Just accept you lost the argument. For f*cks sake some of you war room guys are so desperate to be right you commit every logical fallacy in the book.

More realistic chance

Tweaks to current system > universal healthcare

They don't have equal chances of succeeding. Don't be a dipsh*t and say otherwise.

Smh

Exactly. Hillary will meet in the middle w/ the repubs, problem is her position is not that left and more centrist with Obama hence after negotiation she will move farther right.

Hillary has a weak position when negotiating, same thing with Obama and she sure is huggin him extra close. With Bernie he will also negotiate but will get a far better deal after negotiations.

 

[IGIT]

hiya Handsomebwonderfull,

Stop shifting the goal posts already...

i'm not, my friend. you wanted to talk about healthcare, so i'm happy to.

Hillary has presented more realistic goals
Sanders has not

That was my point. Not whether they'd get passed or not, but which ones were more realistic.

so you're agreeing that Mrs. Clinton's healthcare proposals are unlikely to get passed.

fine, we're good then. you'll get no argument from me.

They don't have equal chances of succeeding.

i wouldn't put it that way. i'd say, rather, that Mrs. Clinton's policy proposals on healthcare have no chance of succeeding with the current makeup of congress. if you want to make this conversation about Mr. Sanders (you seem to desire to do so), his proposals on healthcare also have no chance of succeeding.

- IGIT

 

[The Diplomat]

Democracy at work. ...

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

Exactly. Hillary will meet in the middle w/ the repubs, problem is her position is not that left and more centrist with Obama hence after negotiation she will move farther right.

Hillary has a weak position when negotiating, same thing with Obama and she sure is huggin him extra close. With Bernie he will also negotiate but will get a far better deal after negotiations.

Nah the republican will laugh at him for being unrealistic, he'll get very little public support from the moderates and it will die.

I had to block igit. Is he always like this or something. That was ridiculous lol

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

I mean Jesus. I didn't say whether it's get passed or not. I said Hillary's plans were more realistic to get passed.

Lol. That guy guy needs a life.

 

[The Diplomat]

I mean Jesus. I didn't say whether it's get passed or not. I said Hillary's plans were more realistic to get passed.

Lol. That guy guy needs a life.

256 posts in 10 days.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

256 posts in 10 days.

So a post per hour on the only social media I'm on.

Is this social media or just a message board?

 

[Fawlty]

So "party officials" basically call the shots as to who gets elected eh? And party officials are paid for by lobbyists...

WHAT THE FLYING FUCK IS THE PURPOSE OF THE VOTE THEN?

To suppress factions in the democratic process and prevent majorities from upsetting the status quo. It's a check on the "mob" so to speak. It's a useful feature of our government, but it's also corruptible.

(I should also note that the argument behind them was that party leaders had too much control of the process, which is the opposite of what we would assume. Superdelegates are accessible and subject to popular pressure. But I still find them to be, primarily, a way to suppress the shifting tides of the public.)

 

[Fawlty]

If Sanders gets the majority of the primaries the super delegates will have to flip - like many did in 08

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama

Article from '08, something for us to keep in mind over the next couple weeks as we again throw a fit over superdelegates.

 

[Diamond Jim]

I heard a super delegate make the point she's supporting Clinton because she identifies herself as a democrat, whereas Bernie puts that I-VT in front of his name.

 

[IGIT]

Exactly. Hillary will meet in the middle w/ the repubs, problem is her position is not that left and more centrist with Obama hence after negotiation she will move farther right.

Hillary has a weak position when negotiating, same thing with Obama and she sure is huggin him extra close. With Bernie he will also negotiate but will get a far better deal after negotiations.

hi Jackasa,

the thing is, Mr. Obama was willing and did meet in the middle with the GOP. what did it yield him?

Handsomebwonderfull wants to talk about healthcare, right? Mr. Obama's healthcare reform was a conservative construct. the Affordable Care Act met Republicans more than halfway and all that netted the POTUS was a multiyear, prolonged effort from the GOP to overturn the act.

the chances i'd give Mrs. Clinton to work with the GOP congress to pass legislation that is dear to her no chance at all even if she did have a robust record in convincing Republicans to work with her (which she does not).

- IGIT

 

[BVG]

To suppress factions in the democratic process and prevent majorities from upsetting the status quo. It's a check on the "mob" so to speak. It's a useful feature of our government, but it's also corruptible.

(I should also note that the argument behind them was that party leaders had too much control of the process, which is the opposite of what we would assume. Superdelegates are accessible and subject to popular pressure. But I still find them to be, primarily, a way to suppress the shifting tides of the public.)

I dunno...shifting tides of the public? Isn't that the point? It's not like these elections happen every year...they happen every 4 years.

And you are right. This set up is absolutely corruptible. It sounds like for a cheap reason, politicians have put in place a type of "control" over what the public votes. They've robbed you of your choice without taking away your vote.

It's complete and utter bullshit.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

To suppress factions in the democratic process and prevent majorities from upsetting the status quo. It's a check on the "mob" so to speak. It's a useful feature of our government, but it's also corruptible.

Is Murka supposed to be a modern first-world nation or is it supposed to be ancient Rome?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

I dunno...shifting tides of the public? Isn't that the point? It's not like these elections happen every year...they happen every 4 years.

And you are right. This set up is absolutely corruptible. It sounds like for a cheap reason, politicians have put in place a type of "control" over what the public votes. They've robbed you of your choice without taking away your vote.

It's complete and utter bullshit.

I dunno...shifting tides of the public? Isn't that the point? It's not like these elections happen every year...they happen every 4 years.

And you are right. This set up is absolutely corruptible. It sounds like for a cheap reason, politicians have put in place a type of "control" over what the public votes. They've robbed you of your choice without taking away your vote.

It's complete and utter bullshit.

Well you cant have the gays, blecks, and poors ruining the party for the 1% now can you?

 

[UpaLoompa]

If this comes down to superdelegates at the end, which I doubt, expect revisions to the system.

 

[spin]

I'd lay money now it'll be Hillary next POTUS, especially if Trump wins the nomination, which I'd bet against.
The GOP knows they'd be wrecking their chances if that happened.

I like Bernie but he's got no chance.

I think it's out of the GOP's hands

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I think it's out of the GOP's hands

I pretty much agree.
Those chickens are coming home to roost.

 

[fightfan2355]

I'd lay money now it'll be Hillary next POTUS, especially if Trump wins the nomination, which I'd bet against.
The GOP knows they'd be wrecking their chances if that happened.

I like Bernie but he's got no chance.

Uh, not quite.

The superdelegates in her favor are pending, not solidified, and in total make up only 15% of the pie.

If Bernie wins the regular delegates, he's very likely to get the nomination, even if almost all of the 712 superdelegates go in her favor.

If the party elites overrule the Democrat voters.... all hell will break loose and the party will be in chaos, to say the least. They will fall in line and switch over to Bernie.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Uh, not quite.

The superdelegates in her favor are pending, not solidified, and in total make up only 15% of the pie.

If Bernie wins the regular delegates, he's very likely to get the nomination, even if almost all of the 712 superdelegates go in her favor.

If the party elites overrule the Democrat voters.... all hell will break loose and the party will be in chaos, to say the least. They will fall in line and switch over to Bernie.

Good analysis.
The fun is just getting started!

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

hiya SOA,

errrr....lol. its actually what the data shows from New Hampshire.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-ham.../bernie-sanders-wins-every-demographic-group/

Mrs. Clinton beat Mr. Sanders among households earning 200k or more, but she lost almost every other demographic. its not propaganda, its merely a bland recitation of the results in New Hampshire.

- IGIT

I wasn't talking about people in New Hampshire but nationally and people in Iowa. I recall Clinton winning the educated, minority, never been to college, rural, and those making over 50 a year vote.

Ok, so now that you carefully explain this nonsense, it's still bullshit.

Nothing you have just said has told me that this is a democratic process.

You are trying to excuse the fact that members of congress hold the power of nearly 30 percent of the delegate votes. For Sanders to win, he needs to beat Hillary and the establishment by more than 30 percent...and you call this fair? Or Democratic?

How do I not know that those party members haven't been bought by the establishment? What fucking candidate is going to win by more than 30 percent in any election? The problem here that you are glossing over is that a small group of people are accounting for 30 percent of the vote. If I had money, and I wanted Hillary in office...what's to stop me from purchasing those delegates?

Bernie isn't popular with anyone who is part of the current establishment. Media doesn't like him, big business do not like him....the banks don't like him. Big pharmacy sure as shit doesn't like him...nobody with power likes him. So why on earth would I expect him to be popular within his own party that's helped create this establishment?

Dude it has always been like this sinfe te country was founded. As it stand we have a way better Democratic system than the vast majority of Europe or other countries in the world that are Democratic. Fixing campaign finance would really improve our system though.

2) She only has about a little over half of that 30% and she wouldn't have that much if Bernie was a better more reasonable and practical candidate. If Joe Biden, Bloomberg, John Kerry or even Elizabeth Warren were in this race or he'll Pelosi this would not be the case.

3) now you are acting like a conspiracy theorist which is just not good man. Theoretically one could buy off superdelegates but no past history suggests that. In fact, the fact that Obama pulled ahead of Clinton in 08 is proof that the "establishment" will get behind someone they feel is reasonable and they can work with.

I realize Bernie fans don't like hearing this but it's the truth. The vast majority of elected officials in our nation (people whom average day Americans vote for) do not like Bernie Sanders or even want to freaking wok with him. That is saying a lot