Bernie Sanders for President

Options
1…6768707273…96

Comments

  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    If I had a nickel for all the people crapping on Bernie without realizing he has a legitimate chance -STILL - I'd be rich.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    http://sourceplanet.net/politics/hillarys-oakland-rally-vs-bernies-sacramento-rally/
  • ikiT
    ikiT USA Posts: 11,059
    He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that.
    The whole system is rigged.
    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    Tiki said:

    He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that.
    The whole system is rigged.

    Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
  • Jearlpam0925
    Jearlpam0925 Deep South Philly Posts: 17,507
    edited May 2016
    Free said:

    If I had a nickel for all the people crapping on Bernie without realizing he has a legitimate chance -STILL - I'd be rich.

    I don't know what legitimate means. Again, voted for the guy - but possible? Sure. Probable? Hells no.
  • ikiT
    ikiT USA Posts: 11,059
    I voted for him too!
    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,650
    I'm not convinced Bernie is out of it. If you support him and you believe he is better than Trump or Clinton (easy call if you ask me), then maybe don't cave in so easily.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni











  • Jearlpam0925
    Jearlpam0925 Deep South Philly Posts: 17,507
    brianlux said:

    I'm not convinced Bernie is out of it. If you support him and you believe he is better than Trump or Clinton (easy call if you ask me), then maybe don't cave in so easily.

    Who's caving? There are ideals, and votes (which I only get one of).... and then there's math. It's not close.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Math, you say?

    I don't agree that math is always accurate so I don't agree with everything about this video, but you asked!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEGjXRsEdbs
  • benjs
    benjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,359
    mrussel1 said:

    Tiki said:

    He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that.
    The whole system is rigged.

    Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
    I'm really not sure how you could say that he would have zero chance to win without super delegates. I see this oppositely: without super delegates, the public would have seen a neck-in-neck race, as opposed to Sanders trailing by 200-300 delegates at any given point. Given the value of momentum on a campaign, this is not a small detail to ignore.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Jearlpam0925
    Jearlpam0925 Deep South Philly Posts: 17,507
    Yeah, it's pretty cool to cherry pick the biased news that supports your case. That's always politics at its best.

    But, anyway, yeah, math - no chance. Wish he did, but he does not.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Didn't watch the video which explains it, I see...
  • Jearlpam0925
    Jearlpam0925 Deep South Philly Posts: 17,507
    No, no, I watched it. Welp, tried. Left or right - I don't listen to things that talk at me.
  • Jearlpam0925
    Jearlpam0925 Deep South Philly Posts: 17,507
    edited May 2016
    I can also guarantee something else for you - if he runs independent: A) he definitely doesn't win, and B ) gives Trump a greater chance of getting the vote from the mouth breathers of this country.

    Again, I guess we learned nothing in 2000.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Jearlpam0925 said:

    I can also guarantee something else for you - if he runs independent: A) he definitely doesn't win, and B ) gives Trump a greater chance of getting the vote from the mouth breathers of this country.

    Again, I guess we learned nothing in 2000.

    don't subscribe to this at all ... there are always gonna be people who vote independent ... if nader didn't run - someone else would have and the same people would have voted for that person ...
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    benjs said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Tiki said:

    He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that.
    The whole system is rigged.

    Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
    I'm really not sure how you could say that he would have zero chance to win without super delegates. I see this oppositely: without super delegates, the public would have seen a neck-in-neck race, as opposed to Sanders trailing by 200-300 delegates at any given point. Given the value of momentum on a campaign, this is not a small detail to ignore.
    So you are saying the outcomes would have been different, but people are only voting for Clinton because she is winning. That's not an empirical argument and it flies in the face of the truisms of this campaign. Bernie wins white states and caucuses, Hillary wins diverse states and primaries.

    Regardless, my point is about today. Without SDs, where the numbers stand today, Bernie would not have a legitimate chance. He can't win close to 70 percent going forward.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Jearlpam0925 said:

    I can also guarantee something else for you - if he runs independent: A) he definitely doesn't win, and B ) gives Trump a greater chance of getting the vote from the mouth breathers of this country.

    Again, I guess we learned nothing in 2000.

    I don't listen to anyone who guarantees anything especially when it comes to politics.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    mrussel1 said:

    benjs said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Tiki said:

    He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that.
    The whole system is rigged.

    Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
    I'm really not sure how you could say that he would have zero chance to win without super delegates. I see this oppositely: without super delegates, the public would have seen a neck-in-neck race, as opposed to Sanders trailing by 200-300 delegates at any given point. Given the value of momentum on a campaign, this is not a small detail to ignore.
    So you are saying the outcomes would have been different, but people are only voting for Clinton because she is winning. That's not an empirical argument and it flies in the face of the truisms of this campaign. Bernie wins white states and caucuses, Hillary wins diverse states and primaries.

    Regardless, my point is about today. Without SDs, where the numbers stand today, Bernie would not have a legitimate chance. He can't win close to 70 percent going forward.
    As usual I disagree, in fact I think the exact opposite. If there were no superdelegates, who are bought and paid for by Clinton's camp well ahead of time, Sanders' chances would be tenfold.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    Free said:

    mrussel1 said:

    benjs said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Tiki said:

    He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that.
    The whole system is rigged.

    Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
    I'm really not sure how you could say that he would have zero chance to win without super delegates. I see this oppositely: without super delegates, the public would have seen a neck-in-neck race, as opposed to Sanders trailing by 200-300 delegates at any given point. Given the value of momentum on a campaign, this is not a small detail to ignore.
    So you are saying the outcomes would have been different, but people are only voting for Clinton because she is winning. That's not an empirical argument and it flies in the face of the truisms of this campaign. Bernie wins white states and caucuses, Hillary wins diverse states and primaries.

    Regardless, my point is about today. Without SDs, where the numbers stand today, Bernie would not have a legitimate chance. He can't win close to 70 percent going forward.
    As usual I disagree, in fact I think the exact opposite. If there were no superdelegates, who are bought and paid for by Clinton's camp well ahead of time, Sanders' chances would be tenfold.
    Based on what? How many SDs are there? And how many votes had she racked up? What is the argument, that people only voted for her because of the SDs?
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,590
    Free said:

    Math, you say?

    I don't agree that math is always accurate so I don't agree with everything about this video, but you asked!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEGjXRsEdbs

    He needs to win something like 65% of the remaining pledged delegates. He won with 51% last night. So, I believe, the long odds of him winning actually got worse
    www.myspace.com
This discussion has been closed.

Categories