Got a hatchet?
Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
-
Got a hatchet?
-
@Cyan:
"no break-ins unless you lived in one of 'their' neighborhoods, no violent crime unless a black man dared to make small talk with a white woman, no mass immigration except for the constant stream of immigrants this county has had unabated since the mid-19th century, and most of all none of the rap music blasting at all hours of the day"
No Cyan he means after the old mass immigration and before the modern mass immigration, so the moderate immigration created by blatantly racist selective entry laws!
Just to reiterate, no hatred in his heart, none at all. -
I don't see any cameras… go plant a confederate flag out there. :P
Why to make that guy happier?
-
Bernie supporters still not in the mood to unite.
The fact that 40% wants to vote for Trump or Johnson shows how clueless they are.
-
Thought I'd post this here. -
Bernie supporters still not in the mood to unite.
The fact that 40% wants to vote for Trump or Johnson shows how clueless they are.
Give em' some time still. After the convention things should show how they formulate.
But really having said that, Bernie has himself a job to do. He needs to address this and help the Democrat vote consolidate himself.
-
Tbh I think the worst thing Trump could have done was to tell Bernie supporters to vote for him. It sort of takes away the rebelliousness of it
-
@Monkey:
Give em' some time still. After the convention things should show how they formulate.
But really having said that, Bernie has himself a job to do. He needs to address this and help the Democrat vote consolidate himself.
The fact that he just admitted to the fact he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination but yet won't concede and endorse Hillary doesn't exactly look very good though.
-
Bernie people should encourage him to start his own party after the election and take a bunch of Democrat politicians with him. He seems perfectly poised to do so.
-
Bernie people should encourage him to start his own party after the election and take a bunch of Democrat politicians with him. He seems perfectly poised to do so.
Well minus the fact that Bernie and the democracts aren't exactly fond of one another and therefore aren't likely to rally around him.
-
Also the fact Bernie will be pushing 80 next election.
He ain't running again.
Movement he started might, if his followers actually vote and work at it and try to make changes happen on the local level, rather than just tying all hopes up into a single individual to magically change everything.
-
Bernie people should encourage him to start his own party after the election and take a bunch of Democrat politicians with him. He seems perfectly poised to do so.
That would only serve to set back progressive causes another decade or so since the major beneficiary of that would be the Republican Party; it's a shuffling husk of its former self but isn't dead yet. It'd be a phenomenally bad idea for the Left to split up before at least 2022 since 2020 is a census year and a lot of redistricting will follow it. The most likely result of a major challenge to the Democratic Party before then would be that the districts the GOP gerrymandered the hell out of after 2010 would remain as they are.
If he wants to make actual changes, he should encourage people to run as Democrats and especially wherever there's a Republican running unopposed.
-
He might not even get his Senate seat back.
-
Just a reminder of the type of people Trump appeals to and why even the more bitter of Bernie's supporters shouldn't legit consider voting for him
-
"That's America"
-
"That's America"
[qimg]https://66.media.tumblr.com/68e6edd110f40b96d0e44b6cd4f61b74/tumblr_mpwy994hWp1sawq65o1_250.gif[/qimg]You should be president some day
-
2016 the year that people opted for a buffoon and a liar and the year the UK voted for it's own destruction. What fun.
-
I am really sad about what we've done here in the UK
-
I am really sad about what we've done here in the UK
I was angry when I woke up to this news. I'm still annoyed now.
-
I was angry when I woke up to this news. I'm still annoyed now.
We are living in interesting times
-
The fact that he just admitted to the fact he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination but yet won't concede and endorse Hillary doesn't exactly look very good though.
He should have won the nomination, but he didn't. Why should he endorse someone whose organization seriously undermined our democracy?
At this rate, it's not like Trump has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected either way. -
He should have won the nomination, but he didn't. Why should he endorse someone whose organization seriously undermined our democracy?
I think what would undermine democracy is the person with less votes being given the nomination, personally, I feel.
-
Ok… I'll add a caveat to that. He probably should have won. More than enough strange and illegal things have happened during this election to call the primary results into question, but for obvious reasons we're not going to get a do-over.
-
Well small dogs do bark the loudest especially when they believe there's a conspiracy against them.
He should have won the nomination, but he didn't. Why should he endorse someone whose organization seriously undermined our democracy?
He's considering endorsing the GOP?
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36622383
Probably the closest we will get to an endorsement from him. -
He should have won the nomination, but he didn't. Why should he endorse someone whose organization seriously undermined our democracy?
Tell me HOW they apparently undermined democracy tho. What exactly did they do that made peoples' votes somehow not count? Also, back up any assertions you make with proof.
I keep seeing people say that, but the stuff they say never holds up to scrutiny.
-
I'm sorry, have you forgotten this already?
This isn't about conspiracy theories, it's about real injustices that actually happened under people who stand behind Clinton, a candidate refusing to offer sympathy.
Edit:
Admittedly my reaction was a bit harsh, but it really enraged me to see such blatant election fraud happening not only in my own backyard, but to me. I was unable to change my party affiliation in time due to shady changes in registration rules pulled off immediately before this current election. -
I was unable to change my party affiliation in time due to shady changes in registration rules pulled off immediately before this current election.
They've had that rule about switching party affiliation as far back as 1973 because it was challenged in the Court System and upheld by the Supreme Court that year in Rosario v. Rockefeller. Also, it was definitely in force in 2008 as seen here.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Looking at the election calendar for New York, they had general elections on Nov. 3, 2015, which is why the deadline to change party affiliation was in October of that year.
-
I'm sorry, have you forgotten this already?
This isn't about conspiracy theories, it's about real injustices that actually happened under people who stand behind Clinton, a candidate refusing to offer sympathy.
First off, there's no evidence the Clinton camp had any deliberate hand in any of the things that occurred there as some of the stuff (Like it being hard to change parties) were based on rules that were already in place for a while rather than any shenanigans anyone pulled.
I mean, it makes no sense to blame the Clinton camp either when you really think about it. Clinton won New York by 290,614 votes.
Even if we assume that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 126,000 voters who may have been affected by what happened there were going to vote for Sanders and that NONE of them were Clinton voters, she still won by ~165,000 votes.Even if we give that to him, Clinton's win margin changes from 58%/42% to 54%/46%. That would have gained Bernie a Whopping SIX Delegates.
Simply put, It makes no sense for Clinton to "Rig" anything when she's that comfortably ahead, and whatever did occur had little effect on things anyway. Hillary STILL would have won by a fairly wide margin.
What's more, with the issue of a "Caucus vs. a Primary" the system actually favored Bernie in several of the races because of this.
Basically, most of the screwups, especially Arizona which prevented me from voting, were more Hanlon's Razor in effect. Which states:
"Never immediately attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".
-
The situation was more rigged in Bernie's favor than people realize; two of the caucus states he won also held nonbinding primaries that Hillary won easily. Washington was a particularly stark contrast between caucus and primary, which was a 72-27 win for Bernie as a caucus with an estimated 230K votes cast and a 52-47 win for Hillary as a primary with over 700K votes cast.
-
The situation was more rigged in Bernie's favor than people realize; two of the caucus states he won also held nonbinding primaries that Hillary won easily. Washington was a particularly stark contrast between caucus and primary, which was a 72-27 win for Bernie as a caucus with an estimated 230K votes cast and a 52-47 win for Hillary as a primary with over 700K votes cast.
But Ubiq, that doesn't fit the narrative that Bernie was robbed… What will the more rabid Bernie supporters use to justify their stance of letting Donald Trump win with that?!?!
-
Fun fact: Bernie wasn't winning New York even if we let party reregistration go to the day of. You aren't winning this state with only the rural-ass upstate.
-
So what do the Scots do after Trump makes an ass of himself in Scotland? Rip him to pieces, of course.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/i-am-learning-so-much-cool-slang?utm_term=.wqxlrld5j#.onPbxb7oEI say we just sic the Scots on him for the rest of the campaign.
-
But Hillary only won by 3 million votes, the majority of the states, and the backing of the people that have actually worked with her for thirty years, while no one that's worked with Sanders wants to support him, all while he doesn't help the party at all and attacks the current president! Just because Hillary already had it mathmatically won after Super Tuesday doesn't mean Sanders wasted everyone's time for the next three months with false hopes and promises!
Surely she rigged it somehow and Bernie should have actually won!
If the race were at all close, there's be room for this argument but… it wasn't, it isn't, and it never really was. Sanders pulled out a huge crowd, and that's great, but he was never anywhere near being actually competitive, despite the narrative to the contrary.
-
They've had that rule about switching party affiliation as far back as 1973 because it was challenged in the Court System and upheld by the Supreme Court that year in Rosario v. Rockefeller. Also, it was definitely in force in 2008 as seen here.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Looking at the election calendar for New York, they had general elections on Nov. 3, 2015, which is why the deadline to change party affiliation was in October of that year.
Well, shit. Apparently the media lied to me. >_>
Anyway, it still would've been nice to see Hillary show an emotion for New York.
@Demon:Even if we assume that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 126,000 voters who may have been affected by what happened there were going to vote for Sanders and that NONE of them were Clinton voters, she still won by ~165,000 votes. Simply put, It makes no sense for Clinton to "Rig" anything when she's that comfortably ahead, and whatever did occur had little effect on things anyway.
You're ignoring the obvious: I didn't claim that she rigged anything. If her supporters were negligent and it benefited her in any way, that's still a bad thing.
-
So what do the Scots do after Trump makes an ass of himself in Scotland? Rip him to pieces, of course.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/i-am-learning-so-much-cool-slang?utm_term=.wqxlrld5j#.onPbxb7oEI say we just sic the Scots on him for the rest of the campaign.
Watching Hillary, Bill, Obama, Bernie (despite his whinyness), & Warren snarkily and openly putting him on blast work just as well.
-
it still would've been nice to see Hillary show an emotion for New York.
What does this even mean and what is it referring to?
-
She never responded to the election fraud controversy.
-
She never responded to the election fraud controversy.
Because it wasn't fraud, was extremely minor in the overall electoral picture, and didn't remotely suggest bias toward either candidate.
Some local officials did something stupid and bad, but probably more out of some mix of laziness and incompetence. The funny thing about all this is that at no point did the issue of a extremely localized purge of some registered voters suggest fraud, let alone bias. The closest reason I've heard for alleged bias is because the county in question is where Bernie is from.
The county in question is Kings County. Which you might know by another name, Brooklyn.
The idea that Sanders has some birth advantage there like it was a small rural town or something is completely absurd and hilarious.
You've clearly been existing within a political echo chamber if you seriously thought that was a level of scandal that required response. Or for that matter was fraud. -
Well, shit. Apparently the media lied to me. >_>
Wow, it's almost like they jumped on a chance to say there's a scandal involving Hillary Clinton and then never bothered to correct things when it turned out to be absolutely nothing like that.
-
Wow, it's almost like they jumped on a chance to say there's a scandal involving Hillary Clinton and then never bothered to correct things when it turned out to be absolutely nothing like that.
Hey, that thing with the emails that the FBI is going to indict her over any day now is totally a thing! Especially the fact that it was thousands of emails in a way that was not at all against the law!
Compared to the non-scandal when the republicans deleted millions of emails about the wars they started, that's totally a thing!
-
I really hope The Donald picks Newt Gingrich as his running mate so we can resolve that dangling plot point from The 90s.
-
Maybe it's just me, but I thought that the democratic primary seemed pretty close.
Yeah, a 10% lead in delegates is definitely a win - no debating that. But it's not like it was 20… 30... 40%. It was close.
-
Maybe it's just me, but I thought that the democratic primary seemed pretty close.
Yeah, a 10% lead in delegates is definitely a win - no debating that. But it's not like it was 20… 30... 40%. It was close.
2811 to 1879 is not close. 34 of 50 states (or 16 of 50) is not close. Almost 4 million votes difference is not close. Carrying almost no party support (the people that have actually worked with him for 30 years, as opposed to citizens that just heard of him a year ago) is not a strong case make. And most of the states Sanders did win were caucuses that were actually biased towards him.
The only ways Sanders were anywhere near Hillary at any point were the hypotheticals that ignored math along the way.
In the event it had been closeand more 50/50 and less 60/40, then maybe the supers would have turned, and it would be closer in theory, but that was never something to count on prior to actually being "close."
If Sanders had dropped out after Super Tuesday, it would have been close. By holding out to the end he only widened the gap and eliminated a lot of his goodwill and bargaining power. There were reasons to do so, sure, and he did fantastic for a no-name outsider that the party doesn't particularly like, but no, it wasn't close.
When there are races that are 51-49%, THOSE are close. 10% difference? That's huuuuge in an election. That's practically a mandate.
-
Well, if we're looking at pledged delegates (not including super ones), the lead really was only about 10%. And, yes, I agree that it's a definite win.
But it was still close. Perhaps you and I just define mandate differently. It's like.. literally halfway between 50/50 and 60/40 as you put it. It's pretty close to 50/50.
-
Well, if we're looking at pledged delegates (not including super ones), the lead really was only about 10%.
"It's not like it was that much. It was just a political landslide!"
As has been pointed out many times before, Bernie got a disproportionate amount of delegates because of the caucuses. Hillary won the popular vote by almost thirteen percent; ten percent margins of victory in the popular vote are considered to be a landslide victory in our system so she exceeded that in the popular vote and matched it in delegates.
Really, if it were any other person than Hillary against him, the narrative would have been about how Bernie was so thoroughly destroyed that there's clear evidence that there's no room for progressive ideas in our politics. Instead it was about how she couldn't "finish him off" in a primary that was over after Super Tuesday.
-
So much smugness. Just from a scientific perspective, I can't seem to really understand why a 9.5% lead in delegates, or a 13% lead in popular votes is really supposed to be considered a mandate. There was nothing one-sided about it, and people are rightly concerned that the people more disappointed in the result than me could actually ruin the general election for Hillary.
But, whatever, Ubiq. I really don't care enough to respond to you again.
-
Even leaving out the supers. (559 out of 714 superdelegates. 78%.) Who were always a factor in that they like CLinton and don't like Sanders, but would have conceivably switched if he was the popular choice.
34 of 50 states. Thats 68%. (ANd those include Calfornia, Texas and New York, the big population centers.)
15,805,699 votes out of 27,834,835. (A 3,775,437 difference) That's roughly 57% to 43%, maybe 56% to 44%, somewhere inbetween. Or a 13-14% difference.
It was not 50/50, or even 55/45. It was much closer to 60/40 all the way around, and even better than that for Clinton in everything but the popular vote where it was "only" the 13-14% margin.
When a difference of 10-14% in a group of a ten people, that's just one person, or a group of 100, that's just 10 people. No, that's not much. That is just a handful of people, that IS close, and having your coworkers and neighbors come over to join in could have made a difference. Once its it the tens of millions? 14% of 28 million votes is a number so big our brains can't even comprehend it. It was not close by any margin, and that gap only widened as the thing went on.
So yes, I'd agree 10% was close if the numbers were much, much smaller. It's a matter of scale. 10-14% is ridiculous at that quantity.
Also, who knows what the numbers would be if caucus states like North Dakota or Wyoming really voted rather than have only 200 people… but Sanders might have three less states then.
-
Just from a scientific perspective, I can't seem to really understand why a 9.5% lead in delegates, or a 13% lead in popular votes is really supposed to be considered a mandate. There was nothing one-sided about it
Here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
Sort them by margin of victory and see where that 13% margin would put Hillary had this been a Presidential election.
-
Find me a similar list of the democratic primaries, and I will think your point makes more sense. This list means nothing regarding what we're discussing.