|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11863610)
You're really caught up in the first mile of the marathon. Most voters aren't.
Socialism is down there with Islam and atheism on the voter popularity list. Unlike other politicians, Sanders is on record as calling himself a socialist. (Ironically, he isn't actually a socialist if you judge him by the definition of socialism, but that's another matter entirely.) I realize that you really like Sanders, but you don't reflect anything that is close to the norm in American politics. As for the Dem primaries to come: Sanders has yet to demonstrate strength in a state whose electorate isn’t more than 90 percent white. Nevada and South Carolina, the next contests, don’t look anything like Iowa or New Hampshire. Only 65 percent of voters were white in the 2008 Democratic caucus in Nevada, and only 43 percent were in South Carolina. Polling has indicated that Sanders trails among nonwhite voters by nearly 40 percentage points nationally. Although no reliable recent polling is available in Nevada, Clinton leads by 30 percentage points in both of our South Carolina forecasts. In the latest Marist College poll, she’s buoyed by a 74 percent to 17 percent lead among black voters. Sanders must cut into that margin if he wants to have any chance in South Carolina or anywhere in the South. It Gets Harder From Here For Bernie Sanders | FiveThirtyEight
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11863446)
I agree about SC, but there hasn't been any polling since before IA, so we'll have to wait to see if the results in IA and NH move the needle for Sanders now he's getting all this publicity.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11863647)
Do you actually read anything I write? I don't know how many times I've said that I still think Clinton will be the nominee, yet you keep ignoring it.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11863654)
My points to you have focused on how I would expect Sanders to perform in a general election (poorly) and the relevance of primaries in that context (not much.)
While history can tell you something about the future it doesn't make the future a foregone conclusion. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Accept the fact Clinton could lose the nomination. Accept the fact Sanders could be the next President. The likelihood of either still remains small, but it still remains a possibility. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11863664)
Perhaps if you weren't so absolutist (Clinton *will* be the nominee, Sanders *would* lose the general), it would be better.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11863685)
Better for what exactly? I don't expect Sanders to win the nomination, nor is there a good reason to expect Sanders to win the nomination.
This is a discussion forum, where different ideas are actually discussed. To continue to be so dismissive is not endearing. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11863703)
See you're getting better already. "don't expect" looks less arrogant than "won't".
This is a discussion forum, where different ideas are actually discussed. To continue to be so dismissive is not endearing. |
Re: 2016 Election
Carly Fiorina has just announced massive layoffs in her campaign. Everyone...
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11863703)
See you're getting better already. "don't expect" looks less arrogant than "won't".
This is a discussion forum, where different ideas are actually discussed. To continue to be so dismissive is not endearing. Sorry, but this topic is need of a reality check, and the Sanders fan club exhibits the sort of naivete that was evident with the Ralph Nader campaign and that continues with the Tea Party. Presidential elections are won with intraparty coalitions, not by those who have feverish support from a small group but can't win over the middle. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11863727)
Well, you have Flavius on your side, which should concern you.
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11863727)
Sorry, but this topic is need of a reality check, and the Sanders fan club exhibits the sort of naivete that was evident with the Ralph Nader campaign and that continues with the Tea Party. Presidential elections are won with intraparty coalitions, not by those who have feverish support from a small group but can't win over the middle.
If anything you're the one that doesn't deal with reality with your absolute certainty about that the result will be regardless of the facts. If you want to demonstrate your "reality", then the onus is on you to show that Sanders only appeals a small group and cannot win over the middle. Because so far the results don't show that. BTW, McGovern, Nader and socialism are not acceptable answers. Also what gives you the right to decide what can and cannot be entertained as possibilities? That just looks like we should all bow to your superior knowledge. Which is either a) arrogant and very sad or b) trolling, which makes me annoyed with myself for falling for it. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11863725)
Carly Fiorina has just announced massive layoffs in her campaign. Everyone...
(Due to how much she went on about it, not from doing them) |
Re: 2016 Election
So it seems Fiorina and Christie are gone. Surely Carson will be too.
Fiorina was presumably running as the "anti-abortion" VP candidate anyway. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11863791)
So it seems Fiorina and Christie are gone. Surely Carson will be too.
Fiorina was presumably running as the "anti-abortion" VP candidate anyway. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11863791)
So it seems Fiorina and Christie are gone. Surely Carson will be too.
Fiorina was presumably running as the "anti-abortion" VP candidate anyway. Is that Jim Gilmore still knocking about? Pataki? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11863795)
Christie certainly took one for the team in his attack on Rubio. I wonder if Kasich or John Ellis Bush Bush have promised him something if they get the nod.
Would a Governor see the VP role as a step up? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by username.exe
(Post 11863796)
Any idea how many candidates are still officially in?
Is that Jim Gilmore still knocking about? Pataki? |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:41 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.