| sad that Bernie Sanders is losing, he only won 1 state so far on this super tuesday and its his hometown |
Narmy said: j0x said: sad that Bernie Sanders is losing, he only won 1 state so far on this super tuesday and its his hometown He won two, and there are three others he has a chance in. noice, there still hope |
Undim said: j0x said: noice, there still hope Losing Massachusetts will not be good for him. Clinton is up about 5 points with 50% reporting. lol is the voter turnout low again? are the youth voters not voting again? i heard on the previous primary that Hilary won because of old voters while Sanders is usually supported by youth voters |
lol Christie looks disappointed or confuse there about what Trump is saying |
Undim said: j0x said: lol Christie looks disappointed or confuse there about what Trump is saying It's like he just woke up and was actually sleep walking the last few weeks when he dropped out and endorsed Trump. "Where am I, what have I done?" lol ye, his face is like saying that |
| Bernie is getting Vermont, Colorado, Minnesota and Oklahoma. With 80% reporting, he's losing Massachussets by roughly 2-3 points. He did way better than expected, people expected this to be the end for him, and most of these ST states favor Clinton. Trump dominating, but losing Texas and Oklahoma to Cruz. Rubio seems to be getting Minnesota. |
 |
| @Undim thanks for that info, so ye it looks like Hilary and Trump will win Super Tuesday with a dominating victory |
Kyalla said: Rubio seems to be getting Minnesota. i heard on the news that he won there lol, he finally got one win |
A win by Hillary 7-4 (Massachusets almost a tie) is hardly a dominating victory. Especially since he got really important states. Several future states have proven to favor Sanders. |
|
| I hope a republican does not become the president. None of them want to do anything about climate change while their oil buddies keep funding their campaigns. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| The anti Trump super PAC is disgusting , hope Trump sues Hilary for Treason in return. If she wins ww 3 will start. |
 |
Kyalla said: Bernie is getting Vermont, Colorado, Minnesota and Oklahoma. With 80% reporting, he's losing Massachussets by roughly 2-3 points. He did way better than expected, people expected this to be the end for him, and most of these ST states favor Clinton. Trump dominating, but losing Texas and Oklahoma to Cruz. Rubio seems to be getting Minnesota. Yet the media blows it as an hope shattering defeat for Sanders. Classic. Trump winning is as expected. His appeal to the braindead is too stronk. Undim said: pluto_is_planet said: I'm so tired of the media only showing the delegate count with super delegates to make it look like Bernie has no chance. Should they not show them to give the false impression that he has a better chance than he really does? 1. Super delegates will switch their vote based on the popular vote. Which is still with Hillary. 2. It's much closer than people realize without the super delegates thrown in there. 527 to 325. That's a 20%+ point lead. You imply the superdelegates shouldn't be shown because they would give a "false" impression, then go on to say that they sway with the popular vote-Hilary. If the superdelegates sway with the popular vote, should they then not be disclosed until the end or near end of the election to not furthur sway this "popularity" so that the voter isn't influenced by a factor that changes and can in itself cause a momentum toward itself. @ the 20% lead, yeah, she's leading after winning the southern states that she was mostly SUPPOSED to already win, if a 20% difference isn't a surprise at this time, I'm not sure what should be. |
| And then there were four. I suppose Kasich is sticking around because of the tiny chance that both Cruz and Rubio will somehow quickly and totally implode. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| tl/dr it is pretty much over for Bernie. He wasn't going to win in this political climate. He's too liberal. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clintons-got-this/ |
| Bernie was always a long shot, but he has done very well, all things considered. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| As of now, after Super Tuesday... 1. Hillary Clinton to win the presidency 2. Donald Trump 3. Ted Cruz 4. Marco Rubio 5. Bernie Sanders Cruz is too conservative and Sanders is too liberal for me, Trump and Hillary are the only good choices, even though Trump is kinda a whackjob, he's still better than Ted Cruz, who's a sleazebag that cannot be trusTED!!!! |
| Bill clinton and a ton of others were blocking voting sites where there is huge bernie sanders support. Clintons should be in jail or executed for high treason. |
|
ichii_1 said: Why are blacks so attracted to Hilary? i guess they want to get in even deeper poverty. #TRUMP2016 I will respond as a black voter (and registered independent) who admires Bernie Sanders and would vote for him in a general election, but would've supported HRC yesterday. I will obviously be generalizing heavily below in order to provide a some more context re: racial politics you may not be familiar with. ___ (1) Fundamentally, Bernie's campaign does not seem to understand how the liberalism of black democrats differs from that of their white counterparts. Specifically, culture-war issues play a much smaller role, because that is one place where black and white Democrats do not align perfectly. Religion is just one facet of this difference, but I'll highlight it here because it's the easiest one. In 2008, many of my liberal friends were surprised to hear Barack Obama profess devout Christian faith and an opposition to gay marriage. Some assumed both were simply political calculations designed to improve his electability. I would say this is a misread of Obama as a person and a politician. (His "Amazing Grace" speech in the aftermath of the Charleston shootings last year should have erased all doubts regarding his genuine religiosity.) His religious belief, and his opposition (and later evolution) on marriage equality, are pretty standard among America's black professional/political class. The reality is that "black liberalism" has historically existed hand-in-hand with religious belief, whereas "white liberalism" often exists in opposition to it. In black America, the church is widely perceived as a liberating force - the seed from which the Civil Rights Movement grew. White democrats tend to see it as a source of oppression, particularly during the past decade's fight for LGBT rights. The "alliance" between socially liberal whites and culturally conservative minorities continues to exist, because minorities are not as politically invested in the social issues that have defined the culture war over the last three decades. So while black Americans as a group are actually fairly religious and socially conservative, we differ from white liberals and white conservatives in that these culture-war issues are less likely to influence how we vote. So in this case at least, it's helpful to think about the other question: not "why don't black democrats find Bernie appealing?" but rather, "why do white democrats like him so much?" My impression has been that for many of Bernie's (mostly young, largely white) voters, Bernie's social liberalism (including his irreligiosity) is a big part of his appeal. He has reaped the benefits of staking out positions on the liberal side of the culture war. But culture war issues don't pay as many dividends in a heavily Protestant black electorate (or a heavily Catholic brown electorate). Please understand: I'm not saying that that social issues have helped Hillary and harmed Bernie's standing among black voters. I'm saying that they have helped Bernie among white voters but have done him no good among black voters. It just doesn't factor that heavily in the political calculus. ___ (2) So then, what is motivating black voters, if not culture-war issues? I will suggest the following (seemingly contradictory) statement: within the Democratic Party, black voters feel political insecurity and economic optimism that white voters do not. Politically: black Americans have historically been excluded from the basic egalitarian social contract which (in theory) defines this country. Free speech, the right to worship in peace, due process, equal protection under the law - for most of American history these were empty promises. The Civil Rights Movement was less than a lifetime ago, and in a world after Charleston, a world after Tamir Rice, a world where Donald Trump finds his biggest fans among white nationalists, a world where "voter ID" laws are being employed to disenfranchise poor blacks, those political victories seem very fragile. Bernie Sanders has admirable political responses to all those issues -- but he has been unable to demonstrate that he could prevail in a general election against a GOP candidate who might be openly hostile to black Americans. (Even Barack Obama had trouble earning black voters support until he showed that he could win in a place like Iowa.) When a voter feels deeply threatened he/she is most likely to seek security in a candidate, and black voters see that security in the political juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton. Electability is the most important characteristic that black voters seek, because the GOP candidates are unacceptable. Economically the history of black America has not been characterized by the 1:1 relationship between hard work and success which has motivated both the native born and immigrants alike. Americans tend to think of the "American dream" as a kind of birthright which is in danger of slipping away. Meanwhile many black Americans have historically perceived the American dream as a goal to strive for, a pleasant fiction, or an absolute lie. Bernie's entire argument is that things were once better, and are getting worse. He is not calling for a return to the past (as many Republicans are) but a rewrite of America's economic contract. Superficially, this argument should appeal to black Americans who have disproportionately been harmed by the economic inequalities he has highlighted. But here's the thing: black Americans perceive - with justification - that their (our) economic standing is getting better, and therefore are more willing to stay-the-course. (see Link for an article that explains this optimism better than I can.) Bernie's pitch misses the mark because he wants to overthrow a system that is finally starting to work, in order to help us reclaim something we never had. In contrast, Hillary Clinton has wisely lashed herself tightly to Barack Obama, who remains the most popular black politician of my lifetime. Further, her campaign is about social and economic inclusion rather than revolution. Black voters (like other minorities) are deeply unsettled by the the GOP's constant purity fights and increasingly narrow definitions of what it means to be a real Republican or a real American. Clinton's basic message - which is implicitly, 'we the people' means every single one of us - resonates with black voters and other minorities in a way that Bernie's majoritarian populism does not. It's a rallying cry for those at the margins. ___ (3) Last point. Bernie's minority outreach has unfortunately been woefully inadequate. For example: Cornel West - who described Obama as the "first n***erized black president" - is not an effective face for minority outreach! (Remember, Obama is still extremely popular among black voters). In 2008, Barack Obama relied on his wife to "make the sale" (so to speak). Bernie Sanders has yet to find an equivalently convincing surrogate. As I said: I admire Bernie Sanders a great deal. And I think, with time, he could become a formidable GE candidate. But he's basically run out of time to become that candidate. tl;dr: Read the bold! |
 An entire sea of water can't sink a ship unless it gets inside the ship. Similarly, the negativity of the world can't pull you down unless you allow it to get inside of you. |
Rhianne said: While I agree that his "outreach" is poor, I think the notion of reaching out to minorities based on race is silly. In the US it has become politicized to "reach out to the black community", assuming that it is a community bound together due to race. While the reason it is a "community" may have been due to race in the past, and the current situation a result of that, the community is no longer about race. When you "reach out" to African-American communities, you are not reaching out to Will Smith or Oprah. Nor when you are reaching out to Hispanic communities are you targeting people like Jennifer Lopez or Jessica Alba, you are reaching out to a socio-economic class which has a disproportionately large amount of African-Americans / Latinos but is not defined by any race. What SHOULD be happening is a president opting to raise up / help (or at the very least, not make worse) those who are impoverished (and typically caught in a vicious cycle of poverty). This, while disproportionately affecting minorities, would be addressing socioeconomic problems, not race problems which has become conflated to somehow mean both. (3) Last point. Bernie's minority outreach has unfortunately been woefully inadequate. For example: Cornel West - who described Obama as the "first n***erized black president" - is not an effective face for minority outreach! (Remember, Obama is still extremely popular among black voters). In 2008, Barack Obama relied on his wife to "make the sale" (so to speak). Bernie Sanders has yet to find an equivalently convincing surrogate. To that end, while it may be true that the African-American community is "working their way up" and would rather "stay the course" (which again, I am an individualist so while I am humoring generalizations I think race has absolutely nothing to do with ideology), this is very shortsighted given the fact that the middle class is not only shrinking but also earning less, while the rich are becoming ever more rich through . . . Well . . . outdated tax systems on capital gains. However I can tell you one thing, a person who is backed by some of the largest banks in America is NOT going to address the fact that despite the wealthiest people in America making most of their money through capital gains, it is still a flat tax system that gives no shits if you gained $1 or $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. I know you are not arguing for either, however I am saying that "Hilary being the safer option" when we know that the middle and lower class are failing to keep up is just going to lead to even more radical candidates in 2020 or 2024 when the same issues have been let alone for 4-8 more years to get worse. Forgot to mention: I doubt much (if any) of Bernie Sander's popularity stems from his lack of religion. It almost undoubtedly comes in large part from his campaign against "Corporate America", ESPECIALLY in politics. It is actually an issue I see largely influencing who the next president (if not this round) will be. On both sides you see this, with Bernie Sanders and Trump (although his popularity problem comes in large part from other things) |
Pirating_NinjaMar 5, 2016 6:29 PM
 |
| Super Saturday results are out and several states had their primaries. On the democrats, Sanders wins Kansas by a huge margin and Nebraska by a wide one. Clinton destroys him in Louisiana. On the republicans, a tie between Cruz and Trump as they get Kansas/Maine and Kentucky/Lousiana respectively. Maine is expected to be a win by Bernie tomorrow, but the real deal is Michigan which has a lot of delegates and to hold their primary in March 8. |
|
can Sanders still recover and win? man look at that lead by Clinton |
That count there is inaccurate since it includes the "superdelegates". The pledged delegate count right now is 663 Clinton vs. 457 Sanders. |
 |
Narmy said: That count there is inaccurate since it includes the "superdelegates". The pledged delegate count right now is 663 Clinton vs. 457 Sanders. i see, so Sanders is still not out of this then |
j0x said: Narmy said: That count there is inaccurate since it includes the "superdelegates". The pledged delegate count right now is 663 Clinton vs. 457 Sanders. i see, so Sanders is still not out of this then Sanders is pretty much out considering he is far too left for the average American to vote for; same applies for Cruz being far too right |
 Freddy Nicholas said: have control, be yourself, god is dead |
Undim said: Depends on the sate. I live in California, I don't have to declare a political affiliation to vote in either.Nico- said: My state's democratic primary is coming up. Since I'm registered an Independent, I don't know if I should skip this for the Republican Primary or just vote for Sanders on the 26th. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote in both. You'll have to declare dem affiliation to participate in the dem caucus. |
|
| Hillary Clinton wants to prohibit Russia "certain things" and if Russia will not listen she will force them, she have great chance to be the last USA president for sure. Clinton is like Merkel US version 0.0.2 but more worse, she say that in prison you can see more black ppl than white, and she will change it. dafuq? So if Clinton will win we will have clean WW3 USA vs Russia. Russia will not accept American democracy or punishment from USA who named himself World Leader. Look at this video, The one Proffesor is like Trump around the retards who living in illusion and think that USA is the best, and they can do what they want. And Trump? For me he is simple man he want peace with Russia, he want talk with Putin about use Russian/US ground force in Syria and clean it from isis. He is only the one who talk about USA big debts, only Trump using his own money in his campaign. In portals like memecenter here is about 2-3 posts every day about Trump, propaganda against him is very high like in TV. I think Americans are tired of wars, and the illusion of democracy. And here is Video for the ppl who saying that Trump is stupid, how many times he become bancrupt, etc... Use subs. |
 |
| I hope Donald Trump wins |
 |
*European comes in the thread* DONALD TRUMP  |
 My top anime of 2016 for now: ✗ Haifuri ✗ Mayoiga |
| A friend made a good point: If you want to flee the country in case of Trump presidency youll need to do so before he wins. After he wins most countries will shit their bordrrs to us |
"Fuck this shit, fun things are fun!" |
StardustNyako said: A friend made a good point: If you want to flee the country in case of Trump presidency youll need to do so before he wins. After he wins most countries will shit their bordrrs to us Your friend is right, my country isn't too happy: |
My top anime of 2016 for now: ✗ Haifuri ✗ Mayoiga |
| For the love of God Michigan listen to reason and not the same old bullshit. |
| Big Order (TV):great anime or greatest anime? |
Michael Bloomberg has announced he won't be running. He doesn't want to risk dividing the vote further and leaving the decision up to the House of Representatives (which is controlled by Republicans) and let either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz become president.  |
| Nah dude, just anyone but Jeb Bush. I'm pretty sure Hillary will win this.. |
Jeb let the family down. Sr and W made it to the White House. Jeb couldn't get through the primaries. Unless the ongoing FBI investigation of Mrs. Clinton results in an indictment. The Republicans have cause for concern too, with the Trump University scandal hanging over the front-runner's head. But the top dogs of the GOP want Trump gone anyway. So much so that talk of a brokered convention has been floating around for weeks. The only problem with this is finding someone popular enough to "give" the nomination to and not angering the voterbase. The party's leaders dislike Trump and Cruz equally. It would seem wrong to give the nomination to Rubio, who looks like he can't even win his home state. Kasich hasn't generated much excitement in the primaries, so how would he do against Clinton or Sanders in a general election? |
Undim said: j0x said: i see, so Sanders is still not out of this then Yeah, he really is out. I already explained why and Saturday further showed why, even in winning more states, the gap between the two grew. Those superdelegates aren't magically going to disappear either and they're not going to go Sanders on a whim. He needs to dominate in states he's projected to get dominated in. i just learned this today that superdelegates are misleading the polls though, https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/49iz6m/stop_reporting_super_delegates_in_delegate_count/ superdelegates do not promise they will vote for the candidate they associated with so the pledged delegates count matters more right? |
j0x said: Undim said: Yeah, he really is out. I already explained why and Saturday further showed why, even in winning more states, the gap between the two grew. Those superdelegates aren't magically going to disappear either and they're not going to go Sanders on a whim. He needs to dominate in states he's projected to get dominated in. i just learned this today that superdelegates are misleading the polls though, https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/49iz6m/stop_reporting_super_delegates_in_delegate_count/ superdelegates do not promise they will vote for the candidate they associated with so the pledged delegates count matters more right? Pledged delegates are allocated based on voting. Superdelegates are removed from the voting process. The candidate with more pledged delegates is the democratically elected winner, if the superdelegates override that winner then it would be a disaster. Looks like some sites are starting to only report the pledged delegate amount. The NY Times election tracker showed the pledged total plus superdelegates earlier this week, but now they have only the pledged total: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results |
|
Narmy said: j0x said: i just learned this today that superdelegates are misleading the polls though, https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/49iz6m/stop_reporting_super_delegates_in_delegate_count/ superdelegates do not promise they will vote for the candidate they associated with so the pledged delegates count matters more right? Pledged delegates are allocated based on voting. Superdelegates are removed from the voting process. The candidate with more pledged delegates is the democratically elected winner, if the superdelegates override that winner then it would be a disaster. Looks like some sites are starting to only report the pledged delegate amount. The NY Times election tracker showed the pledged total plus superdelegates earlier this week, but now they have only the pledged total: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results nice, so every news outlet should remove superdelegates since its really misleading the public |
| Sanders wins Michigan by roughly 2 points, when latest polls had him losing by 20 points to Hillary Clinton. Huge win for him. Clinton gets Mississipi and joins the rest of southern states she's won. Trump wins both. |
|
| Bern murica to the ground! #FeelTheBern |
| Bernie got a huge win tonight, if you can keep up the midwest states, and get NY, Cali then the country may not be doomed. |
| Big Order (TV):great anime or greatest anime? |
| Trump wins Hawaii 8) |
| Sanders is pretty much still in the race from this analysis Reddit User said: There are 4,765 total delegates meaning the magic number is 2,383 delegates to win the nomination outright. However, 712 are super delegates and do not count or vote until the convention. That leaves 4,051 pledged delegates up for grabs. At this point: Hillary: 676 pledged delegates Bernie: 476 pledged delegates So 1,152 pledged delegates won so far leaving 2,899 up for grabs still. Since there are 4,051 pledged delegates, a candidate would need to win 2,026 in order to end with the most pledged delegates. Bernie would need 1,550 to reach 2,026 pledged delegates. 1,550 is 53.5% of the outstanding 2,899 pledged delegates. So Bernie needs a minimum 53.5% of outstanding pledged delegates in order to end with more pledged delegates than Hillary at the convention. The reason this is important is because if Bernie has more pledged delegates than Hillary at the convention, but neither candidate reached 2,382, this would force the DNC and the super delegates to vote against the voting base in order to give Hillary the nomination. That would be a disaster and would ensure many people vote third party, Trump, or stay home. Maybe they switch and go with the pledged delegate winner and give Sanders the nomination. This is before today's results, but we're really only 40% of the way through the race so there's still plenty of room for a Sanders path to victory. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/49lbj2/clinton_benefits_from_us_medias_misleading/d0srwja |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |