|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11918951)
I don't think that you understand how the caucus system works. The caucus votes also aren't allocated by popular vote, either.
The reality is that Bernie Sanders is losing the popular vote in states that don't use the caucus system; on the whole, he is well behind Clinton. So unless you think that there is a good reason for the guy who is coming in last to win the nomination, there's nothing to be upset about. 1. With regard to yesterday’s Wyoming outcome - my post above should speak for itself - but to be clear… There’s an irony when, as occurred in this instance, because of the vaunted ‘system’ rules, the actual winner turns into the pragmatic loser. That occurred because of “The Rulesâ€. It's absurd - but more to the point - it’s undemocratic! 2. With regard to Sanders ‘losing the popular vote in states that don’t use the caucus system’ , I assume, in that assessment, you’re including - New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Vermont, Michigan and Wisconsin. It’s absolutely true, as you point out, that Clinton has, to date, outperformed Sanders overall in winning the popular vote in State Primaries. And she may very well continue to do so. But she may not. Sanders has a formidable battle ahead. Will it finally prove quixotic? We’ll see but… 3. If, at the end, Clinton secures the nomination with BOTH the required delegate count, as well as the majority Popular Vote - that will be a democratic and fair victory - one which even her opponent would support. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by MMcD
(Post 11919181)
To the contrary - it’s an understanding of exactly how the ‘system’ (party machine) ‘works’ which leads to dismay….
1. With regard to yesterday’s Wyoming outcome - my post above should speak for itself - but to be clear… There’s an irony when, as occurred in this instance, because of the vaunted ‘system’ rules, the actual winner turns into the pragmatic loser. That occurred because of “The Rulesâ€. It's absurd - but more to the point - it’s undemocratic! 2. With regard to Sanders ‘losing the popular vote in states that don’t use the caucus system’ , I assume, in that assessment, you’re including - New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Vermont, Michigan and Wisconsin. It’s absolutely true, as you point out, that Clinton has, to date, outperformed Sanders overall in winning the popular vote in State Primaries. And she may very well continue to do so. But she may not. Sanders has a formidable battle ahead. Will it finally prove quixotic? We’ll see but… 3. If, at the end, Clinton secures the nomination with BOTH the required delegate count, as well as the majority Popular Vote - that will be a democratic and fair victory - one which even her opponent would support. Autocracy may be a better description. Has always amused me that US Laws are often titled the opposite of what they are, a non contentious one, the Paper Work Reduction Act. So why should the Parties names be any different. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 11919205)
To be fair the US is a Republic.
Autocracy may be a better description. Has always amused me that US Laws are often titled the opposite of what they are, a non contentious one, the Paper Work Reduction Act. So why should the Parties names be any different. What's in a name? - a skunk by any other name still stinks! ps: but I remain both cynical and hopeful as far as the 2 parties are concerned. As Bernie would say..."if enough people rise up " |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by MMcD
(Post 11919181)
To the contrary - it’s an understanding of exactly how the ‘system’ (party machine) ‘works’ which leads to dismay….
1. With regard to yesterday’s Wyoming outcome - my post above should speak for itself - but to be clear… There’s an irony when, as occurred in this instance, because of the vaunted ‘system’ rules, the actual winner turns into the pragmatic loser. That occurred because of “The Rulesâ€. It's absurd - but more to the point - it’s undemocratic! 2. With regard to Sanders ‘losing the popular vote in states that don’t use the caucus system’ , I assume, in that assessment, you’re including - New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Vermont, Michigan and Wisconsin. It’s absolutely true, as you point out, that Clinton has, to date, outperformed Sanders overall in winning the popular vote in State Primaries. And she may very well continue to do so. But she may not. Sanders has a formidable battle ahead. Will it finally prove quixotic? We’ll see but… 3. If, at the end, Clinton secures the nomination with BOTH the required delegate count, as well as the majority Popular Vote - that will be a democratic and fair victory - one which even her opponent would support. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11919236)
Admittedly, the UK doesn't have a presidential form of government, but the manner in which the major US parties select their presidential candidates is a heck of a lot more democratic than the way parties in England tend to select their parliamentary candidates.
:lol: |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by MMcD
(Post 11919181)
To the contrary - it’s an understanding of exactly how the ‘system’ (party machine) ‘works’ which leads to dismay….
1. With regard to yesterday’s Wyoming outcome - my post above should speak for itself - but to be clear… There’s an irony when, as occurred in this instance, because of the vaunted ‘system’ rules, the actual winner turns into the pragmatic loser. That occurred because of “The Rulesâ€. It's absurd - but more to the point - it’s undemocratic! 2. With regard to Sanders ‘losing the popular vote in states that don’t use the caucus system’ , I assume, in that assessment, you’re including - New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Vermont, Michigan and Wisconsin. It’s absolutely true, as you point out, that Clinton has, to date, outperformed Sanders overall in winning the popular vote in State Primaries. And she may very well continue to do so. But she may not. Sanders has a formidable battle ahead. Will it finally prove quixotic? We’ll see but… 3. If, at the end, Clinton secures the nomination with BOTH the required delegate count, as well as the majority Popular Vote - that will be a democratic and fair victory - one which even her opponent would support. There were other delegates called superdelegates who had already been selected by other means and pledged their respective votes on their own. The final result comes from the aggregate of these two groups, both of which are limited to specific people within the party. So your attempt to claim that the regular delegates are "real" participants while the superdelegates are "fake" is completely bogus. They're simply two different clusters of players within the party. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11919305)
The Wyoming Democratic caucus had all of 280 votes. Those votes were divided among various Democratic constituents, including local party leaders, etc. They chose some of the delegates.
There were other delegates called superdelegates who had already been selected by other means and pledged their respective votes on their own. The final result comes from the aggregate of these two groups, both of which are limited to specific people within the party. So your attempt to claim that the regular delegates are "real" participants while the superdelegates are "fake" is completely bogus. They're simply two different clusters of players within the party. Good heavens ! I don't have a clue what you're banging on about. You include an accurate quote of my entire post in your 'reply'. But to what and to whom are you (supposedly) replying? Where does my post mention "real" or "fake" delegates of any kind? It doesn't! Where do I "attempt to claim" anything about anything? I don't.... My post was simply an expression of dismay over what I perceive as an ironic outcome to the Wyoming election. And if you disagree with my perception - that's perfectly fine. It doesn't invalidate my view, however (and vice versa). But - thanks for giving me the opportunity to re-read that post because I now see, when citing examples to address your assertion that "Sanders is losing the popular vote in states that don't use the Caucus system" (item #2 in my post) - I neglected to include Kansas - a 6th win for Sanders in a Primary election. In sum, if anything is (as you charge) "completely bogus" - it's the accusation itself. Enough! Not worth our time. :argue: ! Or do you wanna disagree with that? :boxing: :lol: |
Re: 2016 Election
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11918278)
Yup. I think this is where the right wing "anger" issue comes from. People who live in a pretend world, one that denies the truth of what the rest of the world is doing, tend to get upset and confused when reality comes knocking.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by MMcD
(Post 11919490)
:blink:
Good heavens ! I don't have a clue what you're banging on about. You include an accurate quote of my entire post in your 'reply'. But to what and to whom are you (supposedly) replying? Where does my post mention "real" or "fake" delegates of any kind? It doesn't! Where do I "attempt to claim" anything about anything? I don't.... My post was simply an expression of dismay over what I perceive as an ironic outcome to the Wyoming election. And if you disagree with my perception - that's perfectly fine. It doesn't invalidate my view, however (and vice versa). But - thanks for giving me the opportunity to re-read that post because I now see, when citing examples to address your assertion that "Sanders is losing the popular vote in states that don't use the Caucus system" (item #2 in my post) - I neglected to include Kansas - a 6th win for Sanders in a Primary election. In sum, if anything is (as you charge) "completely bogus" - it's the accusation itself. Enough! Not worth our time. :argue: ! Or do you wanna disagree with that? :boxing: :lol: And your claim is just a talking point from the Sanders camp, which has done a pretty good job of ignoring the fact that Clinton has also received more popular votes than Sanders in the states that have primaries. So Sanders doesn't just have fewer delegates, but he also has less support of Democratic voters. He's not only in second place, but he's well behind and there is no way that he can overcome that gap. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11919870)
You're obviously unhappy about the Wyoming results, and you're unhappy about it because of this delegate vs. superdelegate issue. Hence, my points.
And your claim is just a talking point from the Sanders camp, which has done a pretty good job of ignoring the fact that Clinton has also received more popular votes than Sanders in the states that have primaries. So Sanders doesn't just have fewer delegates, but he also has less support of Democratic voters. He's not only in second place, but he's well behind and there is no way that he can overcome that gap. http://www.gannett-cdn.com/experimen...ook/img/04.jpg |
Re: 2016 Election
|
Re: 2016 Election
Donald Trump's Kids Never Bothered to Register to Vote for Him
So, Trump's kids are either not registered to vote at all or are actually registered Democrat (or maybe independents). |
Re: 2016 Election
Hillary in a racist skit. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by themadpooper
(Post 11917874)
Politico :lol:
Cruz's numbers versus Clinton nationwide are far closer than you might think Not sure how long you've lived in the States, but half the country still go to church on a regular basis and probably just as much don't believe in abortion or gay marriage. The liberal media's narrative that the GOP is increasingly a fringe party that don't represent anyone beyond nutters, therefore, is as much inaccurate as it is offensive ... There is a substantial majority that supports a woman's right to choose - has been that way for a long time. And the majority is even bigger if you include rape/incest/health of mother, all of which Cruz is against. So he's simply on the losing side on that one. Gay rights is a more recent phenomenon, but there's a majority that support that issue too. What I've observed, very simply, with gay rights, is that nowadays everyone knows someone who has 'come out' as being gay, and it's no longer possible to view gays as some remote concept; it's now your son/daughter/neighbor/boss/coworker. My nephew is gay; the head of Apple is gay; a ton of people I work with regularly are gay. They are all perfectly normal, decent people. This observation is what is sweeping America and makes it impossible for people to support discrimination against gays. So Ted Cruz is on the wrong side on this one too. We will find out soon enough ... it's "only" 7 months away ... |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:50 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.