Who do you think will be the next president of the United States?

@snood,

Quote:

The Bernie fans would inevitably say that this is a result of corrupt coercion or something similar - because the alternative is that all those individuals considered both of them, and chose Hillary for themselves.

Or more than likely Bernie fans will just claim those super delegates are just part of the establishment. Despite claiming such they say the super delegates are going to change their minds when they see the overwhelming Bernie surge which is coming their way. Lash has put them on notice.

Somehow eye rolls don't cut it.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Didn't the super delegates go against Hillary in 2008? And she was the "establishement" candidate back then.

3 Replies

@Blickers,

2016 is not the same as 2008.

Obama was a democrat. Obama was the first black nominee from a major party. Obama led the delegate count (by much less a margin than Clinton currently leads).

You'd be asking the super delegates to go against the will of the people (Clinton has more votes). You'd be asking them to unseat the first woman national candidate. You'd be asking them to put an independent candidate in front of a democrat. And you'd be asking them to do that in a year where the Republican candidate will be Donald Trump, of all people.

That's not going to happen.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

So was Obama, still is.

"Establishment" is something Bernie fans are trying to dredge up from the sixties to compensate for the fact Bernie is not a democrat. Surprised they're not singing Kumbaya my Lord...

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Or more than likely Bernie fans will just claim those super delegates are just part of the establishment. Lash has put them on notice.

Lash wrote:
Lash and the rest of the world know that Superdelegates ARE in fact a great example of the Democrat establishment. You don't really know what establishment means, do you? But you like to talk...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-superdelegates/473769/

revelette wrote:
Somehow eye rolls don't cut it.

No ****.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Didn't the super delegates go against Hillary in 2008? And she was the "establishement" candidate back then.

You are correct. The same thing happened to Hillary vs Obama that you will see happen to Hillary vs Bernie. The establishment lined up for her then. She was bested by someone else. The superdelegates went with someone else.

Same as it ever was.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/

1 Reply

@Lash,

YAWN!!!

This is from February.

At this point in 2008 it was Clinton with roughly 250 superdelegates and Obama with 210.

In 2016, it's Clinton with 469 and Sanders with 26.

I'd love to hear how you think superdelegates (i.e. Democrats) are going to switch from the candidate with the most votes (Clinton), the first woman nominee (Clinton), and a lifelong democrat who has campaigned and worked to better the party for 40 years (Clinton) to vote for Sanders (NOT a democrat).

You're going to soon run out of straws.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

This is from February.

Lash wrote:

A meaningless observation.

maporsche wrote:

At this point in 2008 it was Clinton with roughly 250 superdelegates and Obama with 210.

Lash wrote:

From the article ....from FEBruary!
Clinton began with a substantial advantage in superdelegates, leading Obama 154 to 50 when New Hampshire voted on Jan. 8, 2008. Obama narrowed his deficit in February and March, however, and overtook Clinton in superdelegates in mid-May.

I hope you won't be too crushed when your darling loses...again.

2 Replies

@Lash,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_democratic_presidential_primary-3764.html

Sanders needs to get 66% of the vote in order to catch Clinton eventually - Not looking like it will happen.

1 Reply

@Lash,

By the time California rolls around on June 7th, Sanders may need 80-90% of the vote... (assuming he doesn't need 110%, Clinton is leading by 30 points in NY polls.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

It doesn't look Sanders is going to win the nomination based on current polling.

1 Reply

@parados,

I think Sanders is a 'johnny come lately' that has no chance against Hillary. Hillary has more government experience than all the other candidates put together. She's been in the limelight since her husband's time. Name recognition is important in politics, and she has it in spades.

0 Replies

@parados,

You might know he started the race at 3% - a complete unknown except to pols. Everything he's done has been unlikely. I'm betting the trend will continue.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Sanders is winning in New Hampshire and Colorado. Otherwise, it's all Clinton.

2 Replies

if anyone is a friend of tko on FB, he's been providing some good commentary and facilitating interesting discussion (primarily with people in the 25 - 35 range). worth checking out.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I have to take issue with your remarks, CI.

Here's updated, accurate information.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/27/472056754/despite-the-math-bernie-sanders-has-already-won

3 Replies

@Lash,

First of all, it wasn't me who marked you down. But, you are correct about those three states. I knew that. I guess I was trying to rely on my memory on how elections turn out based on who wins most often, and I have come to the conclusion that name recognition is very important.
I also know that Sanders has been making great progress, but I still think Clinton will have the advantage with her long government service and name recognition.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

When I said "remark," I just meant your comment, CI. I agree that name recognition is powerful. We just disagree about the final outcome.

Hope things are lovely in Sunnyvale today.

1 Reply

@Lash,

The conclusion of the author of that piece is that Bernie has already won even if he loses in the end, or something. To get the pledged delegates, Bernie has to get 55% or more in every state just about.

Not going to happen. And Hillary is running stronger and stronger as the primaries go on.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Surely you don't believe that. Forty years in public service is not the record of a Johnny come lately.

Only New Hampshire and Colorado? Not even close to accurate.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Its just plain not over. New York and California and Oregon among others get a voice, too, don't they? Hillary's already lost states she was expected to cake walk. How about letting the North have a say in the primaries?

She most certainly has not gotten stronger, she lost Michigan and won Illinois, her home state by only 2%.

0 Replies

Who do you think will be the next president of the United States?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know