Jump to content


- - - - -

Who plans to vote FOR a candidate, and who plans to vote AGAINST one


Poll: Voting for or against?

In the general election will you vote for a candidate you like, or against one you really don't like

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 18 May 2016 - 07:32 PM

To expand, at the moment we have somewhere between 2-4 actual candidates running.

 

Hillary, Bernie, Trump, and...I guess Gary Johnson (Libertarian).  Feel free to add to the list if the Green Party, Communist, or other has a presumptive front runner with a shred of support. 

 

Are you passionate about one of the final candidates, or are you looking to vote against someone you feel very negatively about, even though you aren't fond of the other option?

 

I'm curious.  My hunch is that this will be one of the worst turnouts in presidential election history, because at least for me, all of the candidates are greatly flawed and damaging to me for a variety of reasons. At least in my social circles, if they aren't a Bernie Bro, then they don't plan on supporting anyone. 

 

 



#2 The Green Giant   Leader of the Veggies CAGiversary!   9400 Posts   Joined 12.5 Years Ago  

The Green Giant

Posted 18 May 2016 - 07:48 PM

Like I mentioned elsewhere, and people try to attack me for, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders if I have to write his name in.



#3 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 18 May 2016 - 07:53 PM

Like I mentioned elsewhere, and people try to attack me for, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders if I have to write his name in.

Pffft...poseur spotted.

 

I'm voting Jill Stein for the 3rd time. Go Green or go home.



#4 Jodou   Infamous CAGiversary!   14258 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 18 May 2016 - 07:53 PM

If Bernie manages to pull this off then he already had my vote and my respect for having to actually fight for his nomination. While I don't respect or support Clinton if she's 'handed' this election, I will vote against Trump.



#5 Navex   The Media Jerk CAGiversary!   1185 Posts   Joined 6.7 Years Ago  

Posted 18 May 2016 - 08:01 PM

Like I mentioned elsewhere, and people try to attack me for, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders if I have to write his name in.

Bernie is sensible. It's not just something he's saying when he mentions Wall Street and all the companies out there running the show. They absolutely do and that's why someone like him is the last person they want in the White House. The most powerful and richest people/companies OWN all the land, all the big news media outlets, all of the biggest info pipelines, everything. They will do everything their money can afford to smear him and label him ridiculous shit because they know the common fool will eat it up in this country. People are ignorant and very gullible when it comes to political lies. No one questions anything anymore or bothers to research stuff. You don't even have to support the man to know it really is him against a bunch of millionaires and billionaires who want to keep this country in their grasp. Sadly he is the best candidate this county has seen in a LONG time but even with all the amazing support he's gotten in this last year he's still the little guy in this race and it doesn't help the Dems want nothing to do with him as truthfully the only reason they don't want him to get the nomination is they feel Clinton is their best shot at taking down that moron Trump. Side topic but if this country actually votes Trump in then it deserves everything that happens under his presidency. To quote George Carlin: "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders." This country deserves to get fucked if it's stupid enough to vote that idiot in.



#6 Burning Karma   Ready for the mosh pit, shaka brah CAGiversary!   893 Posts   Joined 9.2 Years Ago  

Burning Karma

Posted 18 May 2016 - 08:11 PM

I would love to vote for Bernie. As it will almost certainly turn out, I'll be voting against Trump.



#7 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 18 May 2016 - 08:49 PM

Libertarian. You know, the only candidate with common sense. 



#8 The Green Giant   Leader of the Veggies CAGiversary!   9400 Posts   Joined 12.5 Years Ago  

The Green Giant

Posted 19 May 2016 - 12:20 AM

Bernie is sensible. It's not just something he's saying when he mentions Wall Street and all the companies out there running the show. They absolutely do and that's why someone like him is the last person they want in the White House. The most powerful and richest people/companies OWN all the land, all the big news media outlets, all of the biggest info pipelines, everything. They will do everything their money can afford to smear him and label him ridiculous shit because they know the common fool will eat it up in this country. People are ignorant and very gullible when it comes to political lies. No one questions anything anymore or bothers to research stuff. You don't even have to support the man to know it really is him against a bunch of millionaires and billionaires who want to keep this country in their grasp. Sadly he is the best candidate this county has seen in a LONG time but even with all the amazing support he's gotten in this last year he's still the little guy in this race and it doesn't help the Dems want nothing to do with him as truthfully the only reason they don't want him to get the nomination is they feel Clinton is their best shot at taking down that moron Trump. Side topic but if this country actually votes Trump in then it deserves everything that happens under his presidency. To quote George Carlin: "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders." This country deserves to get fucked if it's stupid enough to vote that idiot in.

 

The DNC wants a woman for president, that's the only issue Clinton has.

 

The funny thing is Trump and Sanders are both similar in ways. Both know the system is corrupt and claim to fix it. It's why Trump won without and of the RNC support (Also free media, which plays into 'this is all corrupt;' hand). He yells and screams and says stupid things, he then attacks the people in power. The difference is Trump is an insane nut that all his supporters are fools if they think the rich guy will change anything, Sander is 'poor' for a politician and actually will do what he says and isn't a bigot.

 

When Trump wins this (Clinton has no chance and I don't see the DNC paying attention that Sander will swipe Trump's ass.) both the D and R parties will never ever be the same.

 

Maybe that's good. I just hope we can survive 4 years of Trump and god knows how many years of his Supreme Court picks.



#9 Syntax Error   Art School Dropout CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Syntax Error

Posted 19 May 2016 - 03:40 AM

I'm voting for Clinton.  Her style and philosophy are close enough to my own, supporting achievable incremental gains while not overly rocking the boat during a period where people are getting their lives back in order.  I feel that she has the experience and qualifications to run and have no problem casting a ballot for her.



#10 dopa345   All around nice guy CAGiversary!   2247 Posts   Joined 15.2 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 03:53 AM

It may come down for the VP pick for me.  No way I can vote for Clinton but if Trump actually picks a credible VP running mate, I may end up voting for him.  Otherwise I'll stay home.



#11 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 01:26 PM

Libertarian. You know, the only candidate with common sense. 

 

 

It may come down for the VP pick for me.  No way I can vote for Clinton but if Trump actually picks a credible VP running mate, I may end up voting for him.  Otherwise I'll stay home.

 

How do you guys feel about MA's former governor Bill Weld? He's the libertarian VP candidate! :lol:



#12 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 05:16 PM

If Bernie picks Tulsi Gabbard as his veep, I'm writing him in even though I don't really support him (I've finally worked hard enough and long enough to make decent dough, and I'm in no hurry for him to take it away because I'm earning someone else's "fair share" of my shit), but I respect Gabbard a ton, and anything that puts her in position to take a run at the big office in 4-8yrs, I'm on board with. 

 

Imagine a Gabbard/Booker or Booker/Gabbard ticket.  Paul Ryan would need to run with Jesus Christ to win Texas. 

 

I despise Clinton. Like...I get that she's getting faaaar more votes than Bernie, and I get how all the superdelegates are supporting her so they can sit next to the big table and get scraps, but I don't understand how Democrats are voting for her by such overwhelming majority.  They have a mildly rational, sincere, trusted, and experienced legislator running against her, and he's getting crushed. 

 

I feel like Clinton's position on something is 1) what benefits her the most and 2) what did a focus group test as her position in order to win such and such demographic.  I just don't see how anyone can stand her.  She sickens me as much as Trump...or maybe more so, because I think he knows most of us know he is trolling. Clinton thinks people actually believe her bullshit...actually...maybe I'm the idiot, because based on the polls, people seem to believe it. The fact that she's so through and through bought and paid for by special interests and lobbyists.  Just yuck. I see nothing redeeming of her at all. 

 

If Ron Paul or Ralph Nader were 20yrs younger, this would be the strongest 3rd party showing since Ross Perot. I can't believe how broken this system is. 



#13 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:00 PM

How do you guys feel about MA's former governor Bill Weld? He's the libertarian VP candidate! :lol:

I don't know who that is. 

 

Whats your opinion on Jill Stein's believe that nuclear power plants are are just weapons of mass destruction? 

 

Also her belief that student debt can be canceled via QE. Any ideas? 



#14 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:05 PM

Clinton represents the worst qualities of stereotypical career politicians. No genuine desire to effect change or a platform she's been working toward, just a desire to hold office and increase her visibility.

Trump at least has the decency to be more transparent in his goal of being president for no other reason than it being the goal in and of itself.

For both of them, a variation of George Mallory's Everest quote, "Why do you want to be President?" "Because it's there."

#15 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:21 PM

If Bernie picks Tulsi Gabbard as his veep, I'm writing him in even though I don't really support him (I've finally worked hard enough and long enough to make decent dough, and I'm in no hurry for him to take it away because I'm earning someone else's "fair share" of my shit), but I respect Gabbard a ton, and anything that puts her in position to take a run at the big office in 4-8yrs, I'm on board with. 

 

Imagine a Gabbard/Booker or Booker/Gabbard ticket.  Paul Ryan would need to run with Jesus Christ to win Texas. 

 

I despise Clinton. Like...I get that she's getting faaaar more votes than Bernie, and I get how all the superdelegates are supporting her so they can sit next to the big table and get scraps, but I don't understand how Democrats are voting for her by such overwhelming majority.  They have a mildly rational, sincere, trusted, and experienced legislator running against her, and he's getting crushed. 

 

I feel like Clinton's position on something is 1) what benefits her the most and 2) what did a focus group test as her position in order to win such and such demographic.  I just don't see how anyone can stand her.  She sickens me as much as Trump...or maybe more so, because I think he knows most of us know he is trolling. Clinton thinks people actually believe her bullshit...actually...maybe I'm the idiot, because based on the polls, people seem to believe it. The fact that she's so through and through bought and paid for by special interests and lobbyists.  Just yuck. I see nothing redeeming of her at all. 

 

If Ron Paul or Ralph Nader were 20yrs younger, this would be the strongest 3rd party showing since Ross Perot. I can't believe how broken this system is. 

Haha...you just described almost every politician EVER when telling us why you hate Clinton. Dude, WE GET IT. Even I don't think I have as much hate for anyone...well, maybe Ron Paul comes close, but I can't remember the last time I went out of my way to bash him.

 

Anywho, I think Booker is a good choice and that would certainly increase her favorability or at least electability among Bernie supporters, but because of how establishment she is, she'd probably pick someone like Deval Patrick or possibly one of the Castro Bros. The DNC should've run Elizabeth Warren. She comes off as genuine and had that fire that Clinton doesn't, while being far more polished than Bernie.

 

Either way, I think Trump has a serious chance of winning. All the pundits and polls say that he doesn't have the demographics, but I say never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. If Arnold and Ventura can get elected, Trump isn't that crazy of a possibility.



#16 Syntax Error   Art School Dropout CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Syntax Error

Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:31 PM

I despise Clinton. Like...I get that she's getting faaaar more votes than Bernie, and I get how all the superdelegates are supporting her so they can sit next to the big table and get scraps, but I don't understand how Democrats are voting for her by such overwhelming majority.  They have a mildly rational, sincere, trusted, and experienced legislator running against her, and he's getting crushed. 

(1) Because centrist Democrats don't want a financial revolution or war on Wall Street.  We have jobs and mortgages and stuff and while financial regulation is good, the "burn it down" attitude is a turn-off.

(2) Because much of Sanders' ideas are just plain unworkable.  Example: You can't have free college when you're putting 33% of the burden on states which can't afford their current budgets.  Sanders' New York Daily News interview was a fiasco where he couldn't explain his own policies or how the financial arms of government function.  Clinton is a policy wonk and, she might lack charisma (might??), but I don't doubt that she knows what she's talking about.

(3) Sanders has mobilized the younger part of the electorate but that same rhetoric has failed to impress the 40+ crowd that actually makes up the majority of the voters.  People want a workhorse, not a firebrand.

(4) Sanders has a lot of experience in one thing; Clinton has a wider breadth of experience.

(5) Sanders is, frankly, whiny.  Complaining about a rigged primary that is, in no way, the reason why he's losing. Wah, wah superdelegates except that, if you awarded superdelegates proportionally or winner-takes-all by state, Sanders would still be losing by over 200 delegates.  Add to that the fact that Sanders is only running as a Democrat (vs independent, Dem. Socialist, etc) purely for the convenience of ballot-access and he's that much more hypocritical.  Most Democratic primary voters are, unsurprisingly, Democrats and typically ones invested in the party which is why they bother leaving the house on primary day.  Someone whining about the system, who doesn't seem committed to helping the party long term and who acts like he'd happily sink our chances in November if he can't be on the ballot is a huge turn-off. 

 

I don't expect you to agree with all that but that's a handful of reasons why Democratic primary voters are selecting Clinton over Sanders.



#17 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:33 PM

I don't know who that is. 

 

Whats your opinion on Jill Stein's believe that nuclear power plants are are just weapons of mass destruction? 

 

Also her belief that student debt can be canceled via QE. Any ideas? 

I'm all for it. ALL HAIL EMPEROR STEIN



#18 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:37 PM

People want a workhorse, not a firebrand.


Trump being the Republican nominee says otherwise.

#19 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:38 PM

Haha...you just described almost every politician EVER when telling us why you hate Clinton. Dude, WE GET IT. Even I don't think I have as much hate for anyone...well, maybe Ron Paul comes close, but I can't remember the last time I went out of my way to bash him.

Anywho, I think Booker is a good choice and that would certainly increase her favorability or at least electability among Bernie supporters, but because of how establishment she is, she'd probably pick someone like Deval Patrick or possibly one of the Castro Bros. The DNC should've run Elizabeth Warren. She comes off as genuine and had that fire that Clinton doesn't, while being far more polished than Bernie.

Either way, I think Trump has a serious chance of winning. All the pundits and polls say that he doesn't have the demographics, but I say never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. If Arnold and Ventura can get elected, Trump isn't that crazy of a possibility.

I think Warren is on deck. Whether that's 4 or 8 years from now, we'll see but I'm thinking she's up next. It's something I look forward to, not just because of her beliefs, but because there's a little extra middle finger to the Republicans in the monster they created in refusing to confirm her for the CFPB.

#20 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:47 PM

(1) Because centrist Democrats don't want a financial revolution or war on Wall Street. We have jobs and mortgages and stuff and while financial regulation is good, the "burn it down" attitude is a turn-off.
(2) Because much of Sanders' ideas are just plain unworkable. Example: You can't have free college when you're putting 33% of the burden on states which can't afford their current budgets. Sanders' New York Daily News interview was a fiasco where he couldn't explain his own policies or how the financial arms of government function. Clinton is a policy wonk and, she might lack charisma (might??), but I don't doubt that she knows what she's talking about.
(3) Sanders has mobilized the younger part of the electorate but that same rhetoric has failed to impress the 40+ crowd that actually makes up the majority of the voters. People want a workhorse, not a firebrand.
(4) Sanders has a lot of experience in one thing; Clinton has a wider breadth of experience.
(5) Sanders is, frankly, whiny. Complaining about a rigged primary that is, in no way, the reason why he's losing. Wah, wah superdelegates except that, if you awarded superdelegates proportionally or winner-takes-all by state, Sanders would still be losing by over 200 delegates. Add to that the fact that Sanders is only running as a Democrat (vs independent, Dem. Socialist, etc) purely for the convenience of ballot-access and he's that much more hypocritical. Most Democratic primary voters are, unsurprisingly, Democrats and typically ones invested in the party which is why they bother leaving the house on primary day. Someone whining about the system, who doesn't seem committed to helping the party long term and who acts like he'd happily sink our chances in November if he can't be on the ballot is a huge turn-off.

I don't expect you to agree with all that but that's a handful of reasons why Democratic primary voters are selecting Clinton over Sanders.

The problem is that we'll never know the effect of not having a rigged superdelegate system. The effect on later primaries based on earlier primaries is pure speculation. Would she still be 200 votes ahead if there had been no superdelegates right out of the gate? We can only speculate.

#21 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:55 PM

I think Warren is on deck. Whether that's 4 or 8 years from now, we'll see but I'm thinking she's up next. It's something I look forward to, not just because of her beliefs, but because there's a little extra middle finger to the Republicans in the monster they created in refusing to confirm her for the CFPB.

I don't think it's ever going to happen. I'd be happy if it did though! I also wish that Biden ran this time. Holy shit, the debates would be EPIC.



#22 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 07:01 PM

Haha...you just described almost every politician EVER when telling us why you hate Clinton. Dude, WE GET IT. Even I don't think I have as much hate for anyone...well, maybe Ron Paul comes close, but I can't remember the last time I went out of my way to bash him.

 

Anywho, I think Booker is a good choice and that would certainly increase her favorability or at least electability among Bernie supporters, but because of how establishment she is, she'd probably pick someone like Deval Patrick or possibly one of the Castro Bros. The DNC should've run Elizabeth Warren. She comes off as genuine and had that fire that Clinton doesn't, while being far more polished than Bernie.

 

Either way, I think Trump has a serious chance of winning. All the pundits and polls say that he doesn't have the demographics, but I say never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. If Arnold and Ventura can get elected, Trump isn't that crazy of a possibility.

I think for me it's intentional twisting of fact.  That she had the entire party backing her from launch, Wasserman-Schultz as her pet. They didn't want candidateS, they wanted candidate. And when 68% of superdelegates pledged their support before the first vote was placed, that should be concerning to other candidates and to the confidence the country can have in the actions of the National Committees. In fact, I need to revise my "Bernie is getting crushed in popular vote" statement, because it appears there are some semantics and verbal acrobatics, to use that line:  

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.2642798

http://www.huffingto..._b_9972312.html

 

Historically (and I should say more accurately, over the last 16 years or so) we have seen centrist politicians radicalize for the primary, and then the general. For all intents and purposes, McCain was probably closer to an Independent than a Republican until he ran. Romney was one of the more "liberal-conservative" governors in recent memory. But they all radicalize to bring in the extremists from both parties, because that's where the passion lives. The middle 70% border on apathy, feel disenfranchised, and are tired of "their parent's parties". IMO THAT is what all politicians do.  

 

Hillary's overt pandering has been as bad as Trump's race and culture baiting. As I posted in another thread, Hillary telling a black morning radio show that she carries her own hot sauce with her wherever she goes?  I mean, Fuck sake...could she have also devoted a few minutes to her favorite fried chicken and greens?  Then "7 Ways Hillary is Like Your Abuela?"  Motherfuck. I'd eat 10 taco bowls at Trump Tower before I would stomach thinking of ways that Hillary was like my grandmother.  Thankfully, both erupted on social media, and backfired.  

 

Then she wants to ride Obama's coattails when it's in a state that loves Obama. Other times she's riding Bill's. But then at the same time, she starts talking about how Bill will turn around this economy of Barack Obama's, so clearly he's the guy to be her main economic adviser.  You can praise and criticize your former employer at the same time on different issues, that's fine, but maybe be less emphatic in your bragging of Obama's accomplishments as a whole, if you're going to do it. 

 

I'm not an Elizabeth Warren fan, but I can respect that she too seems sincere, holds a position whether it be party line or otherwise, and has the gumption to have a personal view on things. But I think Gabbard is the more centrist, likable, and capable of the two. Booker-Gabbard, Gabbard-Booker, 2020!



#23 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 07:04 PM

I don't think it's ever going to happen. I'd be happy if it did though! I also wish that Biden ran this time. Holy shit, the debates would be EPIC.

When I heard Biden was considering running...I was giddy.  I haven't voted Democrat in a Presidential election in my lifetime.  I would have had he run. (and before everyone gets frothy and calls me some right wing fanatic, I have written myself in three times, and threw away a vote for Dole as an Oregonian, knowing my vote didn't matter.  I haven't voted in other elections). This was the time I was ready to get behind a Democrat, then they failed, IMO of course.



#24 Syntax Error   Art School Dropout CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Syntax Error

Posted 19 May 2016 - 07:13 PM

Trump being the Republican nominee says otherwise.

"People", in this context, referring to the Democratic primary voters.
 

The problem is that we'll never know the effect of not having a rigged superdelegate system. The effect on later primaries based on earlier primaries is pure speculation. Would she still be 200 votes ahead if there had been no superdelegates right out of the gate? We can only speculate.

Setting aside the "rigged" hyperbole, it probably wouldn't have made any difference. Few people take that stuff into consideration when casting a ballot. If anything, it probably cost Clinton more votes from people assuming it was in the bag than it cost Sanders votes.  Sanders doesn't have a chance in hell of winning but he's still getting votes out now, why assume that it made the difference in February?

 

That said, the system we have is the system have had and Sanders knew what it was when he decided to hitch his wagon to the Democratic party out of convenience.  Tons of time to learn the rules and make a strategy to win.  If he failed to convince supers then that's his own fault.  Clinton was the favorite going into 2008 and was outmaneuvered by a new guy who worked the landscape better than her campaign did.  Clinton learned from that and has run a much better campaign this time and is winning as a result.  The fact that Sanders is losing is on no one but Sanders and crying about superdelegates or whatever just looks childish and pathetic.



#25 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 19 May 2016 - 07:48 PM

"People", in this context, referring to the Democratic primary voters.

Setting aside the "rigged" hyperbole, it probably wouldn't have made any difference. Few people take that stuff into consideration when casting a ballot. If anything, it probably cost Clinton more votes from people assuming it was in the bag than it cost Sanders votes. Sanders doesn't have a chance in hell of winning but he's still getting votes out now, why assume that it made the difference in February?

That said, the system we have is the system have had and Sanders knew what it was when he decided to hitch his wagon to the Democratic party out of convenience. Tons of time to learn the rules and make a strategy to win. If he failed to convince supers then that's his own fault. Clinton was the favorite going into 2008 and was outmaneuvered by a new guy who worked the landscape better than her campaign did. Clinton learned from that and has run a much better campaign this time and is winning as a result. The fact that Sanders is losing is on no one but Sanders and crying about superdelegates or whatever just looks childish and pathetic.

I was all ready to post a response but looking at the 2 articles berzirk posted, that pretty much contains the entire basis of a response anyway. I'll just save the trouble of restating it in my own words.

#26 Syntax Error   Art School Dropout CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Syntax Error

Posted 19 May 2016 - 08:13 PM

Just as well since those articles were a joke.  Caucuses are very low population affairs compared to primaries.  Acting as though Clinton doesn't have millions more votes because they didn't count Maine or Washington caucus totals is ludicrous.  The idiot at HuffPo is trying to extrapolate off total state populations for caucuses from Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas and Utah where there's barely any Democratic presence.

 

I suppose this is what you do when you're losing and want to blame anyone but the campaign that's actually losing.



#27 Syntax Error   Art School Dropout CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Syntax Error

Posted 19 May 2016 - 08:36 PM

Here... take a look at this spreadsheet

 

Totals for the primaries and caucuses.  Take the Democratic totals for the states in the HuffPo article, match them against the percentages each candidate got and...

 

Sanders: 546,693 votes

Clinton: 266,843 votes

 

Add those to Clinton's 12,989,134 votes from RCP and Sanders 9,957,889 and you get...

 

Clinton: 13,255,977

Sanders: 10,504,582

Difference: +2,751,395 Clinton

 

The guy who wrote the HuffPo piece could have just as easily done this but it fits his agenda better to say "they never counted so Clinton might not have the lead!" than to do the math and say "Clinton is only leading by 2.75 million votes"



#28 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 19 May 2016 - 08:57 PM

"People", in this context, referring to the Democratic primary voters.
 

Setting aside the "rigged" hyperbole, it probably wouldn't have made any difference. Few people take that stuff into consideration when casting a ballot. If anything, it probably cost Clinton more votes from people assuming it was in the bag than it cost Sanders votes.  Sanders doesn't have a chance in hell of winning but he's still getting votes out now, why assume that it made the difference in February?

 

That said, the system we have is the system have had and Sanders knew what it was when he decided to hitch his wagon to the Democratic party out of convenience.  Tons of time to learn the rules and make a strategy to win.  If he failed to convince supers then that's his own fault.  Clinton was the favorite going into 2008 and was outmaneuvered by a new guy who worked the landscape better than her campaign did.  Clinton learned from that and has run a much better campaign this time and is winning as a result.  The fact that Sanders is losing is on no one but Sanders and crying about superdelegates or whatever just looks childish and pathetic.

So just to be clear, you have no problem with the rules, and you think it's fine to have 68% of superdelegates pledge support for a candidate before a single vote has been cast in the primary?  Hmm, I wouldn't support that type of a structure, especially since the repeatedly stated, and explicit goal was to prevent a populist candidate from "hijacking the party" and running a campaign that flew in the face of what the party establishment wanted. I mean...the whole goal was to put a check in place in case a full on democracy was working too democratically. 

 

And we can all postulate, but registered Democrats want a Democrat to win. If they are being told from the onset by their local senators congressmen & women, and other insiders that they are supporting one candidate over another, if you respect that superdelegate, and you buy in to the narrative that they are the chosen candidate, I most definitely think people's view could be swayed and biased to support the front-runner or person the establishment is endorsing. The irony is that if registered Democrats want to do all they can to ensure a Democrat win the Presidency, they should start looking at who polls best against Donald Trump nationally and that's...

 

********************************************************************************************** [edited by Debbie Wasserman Schulz]  :D



#29 Syntax Error   Art School Dropout CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Syntax Error

Posted 20 May 2016 - 12:51 AM

So just to be clear, you have no problem with the rules, and you think it's fine to have 68% of superdelegates pledge support for a candidate before a single vote has been cast in the primary?

Of course.  Why wouldn't I be?  The role of superdelegates is to independently make a choice of which candidate would be best for the party.  They don't need to wait for a vote to be cast because their choice isn't intended to be based on the popular vote.  The only reason to be upset by this is if you fail to understand how superdelegates operate or what their function is.

 

But superdelegates aren't bound to their first choice, either.  When Obama started beating Clinton in the primaries, Clinton lost superdelegates to him.  Sanders is just failing to make the case.  The best he has is some general election polling that no one who is politically savvy cares about because they all know that "largely unknown senator" polling isn't going to hold up under a negative campaign.

 

Again, no one made Sanders run as a Democrat.  He sure didn't do it because he cares about the Democratic Party.  If he wanted guaranteed ballot access, he could have run as an independent instead of throwing a hissy fit that he's losing and calling the system rigged just because he didn't campaign as well as he needed to.



#30 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 20 May 2016 - 04:22 AM

I'm all for it. ALL HAIL EMPEROR STEIN

Ah, the ignorance.