| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 8/27/2011
Posts: 36,557
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Benzene
Hillary won Indiana in 2008.  |
mmmm I may have meant Vigo County in Indiana?  Who won there
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,292
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
Hillary will start off with 207 electoral votes (from the safe states. Trump isn't switching them no matter what you say). That leaves only 63 more.
There are two lean Democrat states (that voted blue in '08 and '12 - Michigan and Penn). That leaves her only needing ONE state (which is Florida) and she wins. That simple. The media will obviously try to make it sound like this contested battle, but it won't be, and you can bring this post up again on November 8.
Now some would say yeah he can take MI and Penn. Right, but you know what states aren't in the 207 given? Nevada, NH, Iowa, Colorado. She gets these 4 and that makes up for those lost.
|
Well, the Dems better get their act together and vote for Donald's Executor Killary Queenton
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
So much wrong with this:
1)ND is a red state and has been since 1968. Same with SD, TN, IN, and MT.
2)MS and GA are slowly turning Dem and could happen in 2024, but right now I'll say no.
3)Same with TX. Not happening this year.
|
Indiana voted blue in 2008. Tennessee and Montana also voted blue in 1992 (both) and 1996 (Tennessee).
Mississippi isn't slowly turning democrat, it's staunchly republican and I don't see any reason to think that'll change anytime soon  . Georgia and Texas are fair assessments though
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/20/2011
Posts: 12,590
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ezra
Hillary bombing in Indiana and losing to Sanders She's so weak with middle class Americans. Only the super poor and super rich Hollywood elite support her. What a bizarre (and telling) demographic. |
Most of states that Sanders has won are states with a predominately white population. Any state that has a large hispanic or African American population, he has lost with an exception of a few.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/11/2012
Posts: 6,737
|
I'm no Bernie supporter I actually voted for Hillary but he does have a point, the Super Delegtates of the States he won should be bound to him not the loser of the State, this is the same problem Trump was having with his primary delegates that he won those delegates were saying they are gonna vote for someone else at the convention...Pledge or Super delegates are suppose to a "representation" of the States and they are completely ignoring the voters by choosing the LOSING candidate.. we honestly need a voter reform how can anyone deny this isn't right 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/9/2011
Posts: 11,102
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eros
But at the end of the day, he still needs to realize its his obligation, as a democratic candidate that has garnered a following WITHIN the democratic party, to work together with whoever the nominee will be in order to insure a win come November.
Him denying that part of the process only ends up hurting the same people who are democrats that have been supporting him during the primaries.
|
Well his own supporters whether they're democrat, independent, whatever. They don't have any interest of following the DNC nominee unless it's Bernie. They still plan on alternative options besides Clinton in case he lost. I see it everyday on other social platforms, and it's a big group of people spreading this message around there communities however they can such as phonebanking. If it wasn't for them Bernie wouldn't be where he is now. He came from being unknown to being a threat to Hillary. With Trump polling better than Hillary due to her unfavorablility and Bernie is slimming her chances as well. I could see a contested convention. This is the reason Bernie isn't giving up and will go till the end. Hillarys wins have mainly been by small differences and additional delegates her advantage. However with every state there were more counties won by Bernie & higher favoritism among voters despite Hills wins.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/11/2012
Posts: 6,737
|
Quote:
Originally posted by B94
Well his own supporters whether they're democrat, independent, whatever. They don't have any interest of following the DNC nominee unless it's Bernie. They still plan on alternative options besides Clinton in case he lost. I see it everyday on other social platforms, and it's a big group of people spreading this message around there communities however they can such as phonebanking. If it wasn't for them Bernie wouldn't be where he is now. He came from being unknown to being a threat to Hillary. With Trump polling better than Hillary due to her unfavorablility and Bernie is slimming her chances as well. I could see a contested convention. This is the reason Bernie isn't giving up and will go till the end. Hillarys wins have mainly been by small differences and additional delegates her advantage. However with every state there were more counties won by Bernie & higher favoritism among voters despite Hills wins.
|
We should honestly stop trying to get his supporters to vote Hillary, if they do that's great, It's a bit distasteful when a candiate is "constantly" asking supporters of another candiate to support them because I won and he lost I have yet to hear Sanders, Kasich, Trump etc ask supporters of another candidate that lost to support them instead perhaps it isn't a good image to constantly ask that's why they haven't. When all of this is done Sanders is going back to his Independent party not giving zero cares about the damage he did to Hillary and to the Democratic Party and neither will the majority of his supporters because they voted for him not the Democratic Party
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/26/2010
Posts: 14,197
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
We should honestly stop trying to get his supporters to vote Hillary, if they do that's great, It's a bit distasteful when a candiate is "constantly" asking supporters of another candiate to support them because I won and he lost I have yet to hear Sanders, Kasich, Trump etc ask supporters of another candidate that lost to support them instead perhaps it isn't a good image to constantly ask that's why they haven't. When all of this is done Sanders is going back to his Independent party not giving zero cares about the damage he did to Hillary and to the Democratic Party and neither will the majority of his supporters because they voted for him not the Democratic Party |
!!!
The parties are supposed to work for us, represent our needs. We're doing them a favor by electing them into office.
If they want Bernie's vote, they're going to have to adopt the policies that got us behind him in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/9/2011
Posts: 11,102
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
We should honestly stop trying to get his supporters to vote Hillary, if they do that's great, It's a bit distasteful when a candiate is "constantly" asking supporters of another candiate to support them because I won and he lost I have yet to hear Sanders, Kasich, Trump etc ask supporters of another candidate that lost to support them instead perhaps it isn't a good image to constantly ask that's why they haven't. When all of this is done Sanders is going back to his Independent party not giving zero cares about the damage he did to Hillary and to the Democratic Party and neither will the majority of his supporters because they voted for him not the Democratic Party
|
I agree she needs to stop, she may get a small percentage of them if she's lucky. Voters are almost divided in half since no one is willing to back down in either fan base. I'd be surprised if he decided to go back as independent, however he's denied that. I guess it looks better for him towards delegates if he sticks to the DNC.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Posts: 11,566
|
Super delegates represent the parties interests, not the people's interests. If they view Hillary as better for the party, then so be it. It would be a different story if the super delegates were behind a candidate behind in pledged delegates, but that isn't the case.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/9/2011
Posts: 11,102
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MAKSIM
Super delegates represent the parties interests, not the people's interests. If they view Hillary as better for the party, then so be it. It would be a different story if the super delegates were behind a candidate behind in pledged delegates, but that isn't the case.
|
Yep, and this is why Hillary & the Democratic Party are going to hurt in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Indiana voted blue in 2008. Tennessee and Montana also voted blue in 1992 (both) and 1996 (Tennessee).
Mississippi isn't slowly turning democrat, it's staunchly republican and I don't see any reason to think that'll change anytime soon . Georgia and Texas are fair assessments though |
The thing with Mississippi is that the voting population is 36% black and that's only growing. In fact, Mississippi is only one of six states that voted for Obama more in 2012 than in 2008. Mississippi like many other deep south states are deeply racially polarized, and has been for almost its entire history. In fact, according to a rough calculation I just made, Dems would only need about 25% of the white vote to win, assuming voter turnout is the same for whites/blacks, which black turnout has actually been higher than white turnout in the past two election years (thanks Obama!). The sad thing is Obama only got 10% of the white vote. 
Although, this might change a little when there is a white Democrat on the ticket. 
Also, age can change a lot to in the coming decades.
Look at that gap for 65+. These are people that were alive during segregation. A lot of them were likely Southern Democrats that voted for Barry Goldwater and George Wallace. They are stuck with Reagan's mantra that "Government is worse the al qaeda!!!" despite them being one of the poorest states and one of the most likely to benefit from new federal programs. I hate to be blunt, but maybe after that generation dies off the deep south can be competitive again...
Honestly, if the race were Ben Carson vs Sanders or Clinton, then Dems might win the deep south based on racial issues alone.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/11/2012
Posts: 6,737
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MAKSIM
Super delegates represent the parties interests, not the people's interests. If they view Hillary as better for the party, then so be it. It would be a different story if the super delegates were behind a candidate behind in pledged delegates, but that isn't the case.
|
So whats the point of having Super Delegtates assign to each of the 50 states if they not gonna go with who the voters choose? I'm not saying the system is rigged but a voter reform needs to be done before the next election because when it comes down to it the voice of the voters are being ignore... It would be like Kasich who only won one state ended up winning the GOP nomination because the delegates voted for him in a convention instead of Trump, there really isn't a difference between the delegate " issue" among both parties...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
So whats the point of having Super Delegtates assign to each of the 50 states if they not gonna go with who the voters choose? I'm not saying the system is rigged but a voter reform needs to be done before the next election because when it comes down to it the voice of the voters are being ignore... It would be like Kasich who only won one state ended up winning the GOP nomination because the delegates voted for him in a convention instead of Trump, there really isn't a difference between the delegate " issue" among both parties...
|
superdelegates are basically just a fail-safe measure.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Posts: 11,566
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
So whats the point of having Super Delegtates assign to each of the 50 states if they not gonna go with who the voters choose? I'm not saying the system is rigged but a voter reform needs to be done before the next election because when it comes down to it the voice of the voters are being ignore... It would be like Kasich who only won one state ended up winning the GOP nomination because the delegates voted for him in a convention instead of Trump, there really isn't a difference between the delegate " issue" among both parties...
|
But that isn't what is happening at all. Hillary is substantially leading among the popular vote and pledged delegates. The voice of voters are not being ignored if the candidate who is receiving the most votes is the one winning.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/27/2011
Posts: 20,704
|
It's not really possible to have a contested convention between the Democratic candidates when there are only two of them, right?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bleuwaffle
!!!
The parties are supposed to work for us, represent our needs. We're doing them a favor by electing them into office.
If they want Bernie's vote, they're going to have to adopt the policies that got us behind him in the first place.
|
Then what's the point of Hillary running and winning then?
Don't get me wrong, I think people trying to shame others into voting is really distasteful.  It's not like one person individually can decide the election, and it is your right to vote for who ever you want or not vote at all. But if we want to talk more abstractly about the electorate as whole, then that's more fun/interesting to talk about.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/28/2008
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Aiden
It's not really possible to have a contested convention between the Democratic candidates when there are only two of them, right?
|
It's not possible to go to the second ballot. But if neither of them concede, they both make speeches before the first ballot trying to sway the superdelegates - that's what they're referring to, I think.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by B94
Well his own supporters whether they're democrat, independent, whatever. They don't have any interest of following the DNC nominee unless it's Bernie. They still plan on alternative options besides Clinton in case he lost. I see it everyday on other social platforms, and it's a big group of people spreading this message around there communities however they can such as phonebanking. If it wasn't for them Bernie wouldn't be where he is now. He came from being unknown to being a threat to Hillary. With Trump polling better than Hillary due to her unfavorablility and Bernie is slimming her chances as well. I could see a contested convention. This is the reason Bernie isn't giving up and will go till the end. Hillarys wins have mainly been by small differences and additional delegates her advantage. However with every state there were more counties won by Bernie & higher favoritism among voters despite Hills wins.
|
Ok so the opposite of party loyalty basically, which is whatever. But essentially what that accomplishes is jack sh*t, and ends up shooting everyone in the foot. But the thing is that the Bernie supporters are predominantly white, which would be the group least affected by a Trump presidency so who gives a **** about everyone else as long as they really showed the Democrats whats up, right? Its an immature mentality to have, and really not where the focus should be ENTIRELY. I don't think, to some degree, its bad to champion for your candidate with these kind of measures. And I'd say even less so in another race, but the one we're facing now with Trump? We don't need this right now. There are other ways of going about this.
Also, just to briefly touch on what you were saying there on the end. I'm just gonna laugh cuz its so SO SO inaccurate it hurts.
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
We should honestly stop trying to get his supporters to vote Hillary, if they do that's great, It's a bit distasteful when a candiate is "constantly" asking supporters of another candiate to support them because I won and he lost I have yet to hear Sanders, Kasich, Trump etc ask supporters of another candidate that lost to support them instead perhaps it isn't a good image to constantly ask that's why they haven't. When all of this is done Sanders is going back to his Independent party not giving zero cares about the damage he did to Hillary and to the Democratic Party and neither will the majority of his supporters because they voted for him not the Democratic Party
|
And Hillary and her campaign are just trying their best to thwart off a Trump presidency by reminding everyone that they're trying to get to a similar place at the end of it all. And create party unity. If Bernie continues going the way he's going now, all he's gonna do is leave the democratic party fractured, and thats NOT WHAT WE NEED GOING INTO A GENERAL ELECTION WITH TRUMP AS THE NOM!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful Liar
So whats the point of having Super Delegtates assign to each of the 50 states if they not gonna go with who the voters choose? I'm not saying the system is rigged but a voter reform needs to be done before the next election because when it comes down to it the voice of the voters are being ignore... It would be like Kasich who only won one state ended up winning the GOP nomination because the delegates voted for him in a convention instead of Trump, there really isn't a difference between the delegate " issue" among both parties...
|
I agree. We should get right of super delegates, but your first question is a little silly. The point of them are literally a fail safe to go against the voting. But that has never happened and probably won't happen/
|
|
|
|
|
|
