Bernie Sanders for President

1…3435373940…96

Comments

  • RiotZact
    RiotZact Posts: 6,293
    brianlux said:

    Indifference said:

    brianlux said:

    Bernie was behind Hillary by quite a bit just a week ago. He won last night. We're on a roll. Keep on rollin'!

    Hillary won more delegates last night.
    This race was not expected to go the way it did. It's clearly a victory for Bernie.

    We're on a roll. Roll with us!
    Yeah! I'm hoping this victory means that people in Illinois and Ohio will see it and go "wait a minute, polls can be wrong! I'm going to go out and vote for Bernie even though the news is trying to tell me I'm wasting my time."

    I honestly think he could have gotten 10+ more delegates from Michigan if the polls would have been more honest, how many people stayed home becuase they thought Bernie didn't stand a chance?
  • Indifference
    Indifference Posts: 2,761
    edited March 2016
    Y
    MayDay10 said:

    yes, it is more of the altering of the script as opposed to a resounding numbers victory.

    Yes, more like we suppose to get swept in a 7 game series but lost 4 games to 2.

    SHOW COUNT: (170) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=114, US=124, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
    Mexico=1, Colombia=1 



  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,664
    RiotZact said:

    brianlux said:

    Indifference said:

    brianlux said:

    Bernie was behind Hillary by quite a bit just a week ago. He won last night. We're on a roll. Keep on rollin'!

    Hillary won more delegates last night.
    This race was not expected to go the way it did. It's clearly a victory for Bernie.

    We're on a roll. Roll with us!
    Yeah! I'm hoping this victory means that people in Illinois and Ohio will see it and go "wait a minute, polls can be wrong! I'm going to go out and vote for Bernie even though the news is trying to tell me I'm wasting my time."

    I honestly think he could have gotten 10+ more delegates from Michigan if the polls would have been more honest, how many people stayed home becuase they thought Bernie didn't stand a chance?
    The media has it out for Bernie but all the media cares about anymore is money so if Bernie can keep turning up surprises and making news, perhaps even media will start to work in his favor. And things like Facebook help too. That's were the younger generations get a lot of information and young voters went over 80% for Bernie in Michigan.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • lolobugg
    lolobugg BLUE RDGE MTNS Posts: 8,195
    Just saw my first Bernie TV ad since the SC primary.
    looks like Bernie is targeting NC more than I thought he would.
    he has a lot of support in our part of the state... haven't seen any polls in the Eastern cities.
    He has the momentum to take OHIO and I don't trust the polls in Florida... who would???

    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446

    1995- New Orleans, LA  : New Orleans, LA

    1996- Charleston, SC

    1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN

    2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN

    2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA

    2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)

    2006- Cincinnati, OH

    2008- Columbia, SC

    2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2

    2010- Bristow, VA

    2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL

    2012- Atlanta, GA

    2013- Charlotte, NC

    2014- Cincinnati, OH

    2015- New York, NY

    2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA

    2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY

    2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2

    2020- Nashville, TN 

    2022- Smashville 

    2023- Austin, TX x2

    2024- Baltimore

  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-michigan/

    5 Reasons Bernie Sanders Will Keep Winning After Michigan
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    Bentleyspop said:

    To be clear...

    Bernie won Michigan by a couple of percentage points.
    Michigan is not a winner take all state.
    He gets just over half of Michigans delegates.
    Hillary won Mississippi by more then 60 points.
    Overall Hillary won way more delegates yesterday.
    Bernie actually lost ground in the overall delegate count.

    Good for Bernie but may not matter in the long run.

    Democratic pledged delegates
    Clinton 768 32.2% of the way to the nomination
    Sanders 553 23.2% *edited due to bad copy/paste job

    2383 delegates needed to win. 28% of delegates allocated so far.
    *This count excludes superdelegates

    Aside from the delegate count, let's talk general election. Hillary has won most of the South, however, these are Republican states. Sanders has won mostly Dem states. Showing that Hillary can win republican states, what does this say as a general election Dem candidate? Nothing really. She's not a republican! (well, ok, she's kind of a closet republican)... It shows that Sanders can win against the Rep. candidate, for Sure.
    Post edited by Free on
  • Bentleyspop
    Bentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,439
    edited March 2016
    Free said:

    Bentleyspop said:

    To be clear...

    Bernie won Michigan by a couple of percentage points.
    Michigan is not a winner take all state.
    He gets just over half of Michigans delegates.
    Hillary won Mississippi by more then 60 points.
    Overall Hillary won way more delegates yesterday.
    Bernie actually lost ground in the overall delegate count.

    Good for Bernie but may not matter in the long run.

    Democratic pledged delegates
    Clinton 768 32.2% of the way to the nomination
    Sanders 768 23.2%

    2383 delegates needed to win. 28% of delegates allocated so far.
    *This count excludes superdelegates

    Aside from the delegate count, let's talk general election. Hillary has won most of the South, however, these are Republican states. Sanders has won mostly Dem states. Showing that Hillary can win republican states, what does this say as a general election Dem candidate? Nothing really. She's not a republican! (well, ok, she's kind of a closet republican)... It shows that Sanders can win against the Rep. candidate, for Sure.
    Don't know where you get your numbers but according to politico.com and other sources Hillary has 1221 delegates (including 471 super delegates) and Bernie has 571 (including 25 super delegates ).

    http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker
    Post edited by Bentleyspop on
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    edited March 2016
    Bentleyspop said:

    Free said:

    Bentleyspop said:

    To be clear...

    Bernie won Michigan by a couple of percentage points.
    Michigan is not a winner take all state.
    He gets just over half of Michigans delegates.
    Hillary won Mississippi by more then 60 points.
    Overall Hillary won way more delegates yesterday.
    Bernie actually lost ground in the overall delegate count.

    Good for Bernie but may not matter in the long run.

    Democratic pledged delegates
    Clinton 768 32.2% of the way to the nomination
    Sanders 768 23.2%

    2383 delegates needed to win. 28% of delegates allocated so far.
    *This count excludes superdelegates

    Aside from the delegate count, let's talk general election. Hillary has won most of the South, however, these are Republican states. Sanders has won mostly Dem states. Showing that Hillary can win republican states, what does this say as a general election Dem candidate? Nothing really. She's not a republican! (well, ok, she's kind of a closet republican)... It shows that Sanders can win against the Rep. candidate, for Sure.
    Don't know where you get your numbers but according to politico.com and other sources Hillary has 1221 delegates (including 471 super delegates) and Bernie has 571 (including 25 super delegates ).

    http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker
    Yeah, I just read that the media has been including the superdelegate number in her favor when they are not actually hers to keep (they change, see my last post in Dem candidates thread).

    Here's the link from above. http://www.vox.com/a/presidential-primary-delegate-tracker
    Updated by Andrew Prokop and Sarah Frostenson on March 9, 2016, 11:46 a.m. ET

    (...Also, there’s one key difference in the Democratic process: superdelegates. These are over 700 party members who are free to vote for whomever they choose. We’ve excluded them from this tracker because superdelegates are free to change their minds, and because they’ve never swung the nomination away from the winner of pledged delegates. So if, say, Bernie Sanders won a plurality of pledged delegates, there would be intense pressure on superdelegates not to override the will of the voters. However, just keep in mind that superdelegates are overwhelmingly supporting Clinton this year, so her lead may turn out to be even bigger than it currently looks.)

    Oh wait! Just noticed my error in copying / pasting the post you quoted for # of delegates. From article: Hillary 768 Bernie 553.
    Post edited by Free on
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    I see we're getting different delegate counts from 2 different sources both updated today. Not sure what to think.
  • Bentleyspop
    Bentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,439
    Free said:

    I see we're getting different delegate counts from 2 different sources both updated today. Not sure what to think.

    When googling "current democrat delegate count" the responses from AP, Bloomberg, Politico, etc all say the same...

    Hillary 1221
    Bernie 571

    Not sure why any source would have anything different regardless of they include super delegates or not.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Hillary does not have 1221. The media sources are not specifying her actual delegate numbers when they tally in superdelegates.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Try googling 'delegate count without superdelegates'
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    So according to your source Bernie has 546, Clinton 750.
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/07/clinton-benefits-us-medias-misleading-reporting-delegate-counts

    Clinton Benefits From US Media’s Misleading Reporting Of Delegate Counts
    The vast majority of U.S. establishment media organizations report Democratic Party “super delegates,” as if they are part of the delegate totals presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are winning in primaries. However, this is incredibly misleading, and whether intended or not, it essentially serves to strengthen Clinton’s campaign against Sanders....
  • WhatYouTaughtMe
    WhatYouTaughtMe Posts: 4,957
    I would love to see what this election would look like without the HRC machine grinding so hard against him. It is not a level playing field and he still is right there.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    WhatYouTaughtMe said:

    I would love to see what this election would look like without the HRC machine grinding so hard against him. It is not a level playing field and he still is right there.

    BOOM goes the dynamite!
  • lolobugg
    lolobugg BLUE RDGE MTNS Posts: 8,195
    Keep the Faith, all ye Bernie supporters!!!
    don't believe the hype!!!!

    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446

    1995- New Orleans, LA  : New Orleans, LA

    1996- Charleston, SC

    1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN

    2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN

    2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA

    2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)

    2006- Cincinnati, OH

    2008- Columbia, SC

    2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2

    2010- Bristow, VA

    2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL

    2012- Atlanta, GA

    2013- Charlotte, NC

    2014- Cincinnati, OH

    2015- New York, NY

    2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA

    2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY

    2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2

    2020- Nashville, TN 

    2022- Smashville 

    2023- Austin, TX x2

    2024- Baltimore

  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    HlyFckngSht... Bernie is burying "that women"
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,664
    lolobugg said:

    Keep the Faith, all ye Bernie supporters!!!
    don't believe the hype!!!!

    Absolutely!! Bernie is proving the nay sayers and media wrong and the momentum is building!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • ckravitz
    ckravitz NJ Posts: 1,668
    Free said:


    Here's the link from above. http://www.vox.com/a/presidential-primary-delegate-tracker
    Updated by Andrew Prokop and Sarah Frostenson on March 9, 2016, 11:46 a.m. ET

    (...Also, there’s one key difference in the Democratic process: superdelegates. These are over 700 party members who are free to vote for whomever they choose. We’ve excluded them from this tracker because superdelegates are free to change their minds, and because they’ve never swung the nomination away from the winner of pledged delegates. So if, say, Bernie Sanders won a plurality of pledged delegates, there would be intense pressure on superdelegates not to override the will of the voters. However, just keep in mind that superdelegates are overwhelmingly supporting Clinton this year, so her lead may turn out to be even bigger than it currently looks.)

    But isn't the whole purpose of this corrupt superdelegate system to deal with a situation precisely as this one? They literally invented it to defeat a non establishment candidate should the need ever arise (yeah yeah that's not why it was invented, sure). It seems the fact that it hasn't happened before says more about the type of primary candidates over the last 30 years than any immutable precedence. Not saying they won't flip, but the notion that they won't based on the singular fact that they never have, doesn't seem valid.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories