|
*arf arf arf arf arf*
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Thoguh posted:Delete your account. Lol remember when Hill Folk acted like this was the sickest burn ever?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:don't worry Kentucky troons, the state Democratic Party has your back! Crossposting in honor of good centrist dems everywhere
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
anime was right posted:my takes are good and hot, like bread fresh from the oven. and like fresh bread, they also fall apart as soon if you cut into them. what the heck is a Hot Take?? think fast! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUGNMHcQwJ8
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Because she was "more electable" in te general so democrats should get in line behind of her instead of the socialist that no one who wasn't a democrat would ever possibly support. That was the narrative they were pushing hard at the time. It was the truth. He lost, not merely be delegates, but by popular vote. It's that popular vote that stocks with me. We are arguing that a less popular candidate would have been better against Trump. When the more popular candidate lost the general. The math doesn't add up. See, your responses elucidate the issue. You have nothing to back up your opinion. You just like rolling in salt forever and yelling at hillfolk, who by the way don't exist anymore because they have moved on from their failed candidate. Yet, you can't move on from yours. I think that says something about the emotional nature of these beliefs. O'Malley would have won. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:It was the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNHfeBJ81I (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:The math doesn't add up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFoC3TR5rzI (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
What's the scoop on Tom Perriello? He might run for Governor in Virgina --> via NYTimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:It was the truth. *popular vote tally does not include caucus attendance
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
but, hey, she also won the popular vote in the general, too. (despite it not counting for poo poo and for being someone who was the Most Qualified Candidate in US Presidential Election History in The Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Sixteen, she really should have ran her campaign like it was electoral votes that counted. You know, like it does.) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:It was the truth. You realize the Dem primary electorate actually makes up a tiny portion of the general election electorate, right And also that Independents like Bernie way more than they like Hillary, who barely won among loyalists even In short this is a dumb argument
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
but...the data model and if we don't campaign in the rust belt, trump will think we've already won and he won't try going there
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:the tweet is real but the dril pic is photoshopped, I think that tweet was about how a dude who just HAS to pay his private gardeners and chefs and maids and all a somewhat ok salary is basically poor if you think about it. Ah. I was so hoping it was and insider troll tweet :/ Xmas is ruined.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:When the more popular candidate lost the general. the math adds up to 306 electoral college votes, which is enough to win
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
i get it, i really do -- to admit that you supported a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, rear end in a top hat of a candidate would be shouldering the responsibility that the bullshit coming down the pipe in the coming days is in part because you supported her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
loquacius posted:You realize the Dem primary electorate actually makes up a tiny portion of the general election electorate, right Also Hillary did worse than Obama in everything except for ultra-rich households.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
I've said it before, the Dems always want to nominate the boringest savviest policy wonk and the GOP always want to nominate the blandest Jesusiest sweatervest and if one of them manages to not do that they'll probably win the general because it turns out independents hate both of those things
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
If Bob Dole would have run his Viagra ads as campaign ads he would have won
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
about 30 million people voted in the Dem primary this year, and each candidate received more than twice that many votes in the general. primary success is not general success lol bernie would have won in a drat landslide
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:It was the truth. Especially considering the hatred to Clinton, whether justified or not, ensured Bernie would have gotten more bipartisan support. And with less then 1% in key red states being the difference, well, I have to say-- BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:*popular vote tally does not include caucus attendance Fair, but how much does that really account for? loquacius posted:You realize the Dem primary electorate actually makes up a tiny portion of the general election electorate, right There is no need to call the argument dumb simply because you don't agree. Your other points were fair. Just one issue? There is an assumption that Bernie would never have lost out on some of Hillary's electorate? Why is that? Fullhouse posted:the math adds up to 306 electoral college votes, which is enough to win Can you find an electoral map that shows this? Could Bernie have outperformed Hillary in southern states, New York, California? He lost all those states in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
absolutely lolling at the idea of new york or cali turning red against a SOCIALIST
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:He lost all those states in the primary. hillary lost southern states, too, so good job proposing a hypothetical that would have never happened in seven hells.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:Fair, but how much does that really account for? the bernstar would have won ny and cali. losing a state in the primary don't mean he woulda lost it in the general. the reason people assume he wouldn't have lost any of hills gains is because places like ca, oregon, ny, whatever, are pretty traditionally democratic in the presidential election. whether he would have deffo won isn't a 100% sure thing but it's fairly probable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:Can you find an electoral map that shows this? Could Bernie have outperformed Hillary in southern states, New York, California? No but he could have easily held onto the west coast, NE and rust belt to defeat Trump. Bernie would have won or at least campaigned in Wisconsin
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:Fair, but how much does that really account for? you know that winning safe blue states by more doesn't win you more electoral college votes right Hillary lost the entire South and I think every swing state. Bernie literally could not have done worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
bernie was proposing an actual, hand-to-god, fifty state campaign. which you have to admit was a hell of a lot better than whatever it was that dread abuela did back there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Also the kind of person that voted for Hillary in the primary would have voted for a literal dog for President in the GE if it was running as a Democrat. Are you actually trying to argue that Bernie would have lost Dem loyalists in California?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
remember when berman won Michigan despite polls showing him losing and shocked everyone, and then Hillary's campaign immediately forgot about this slight to their dread queen and its implications and the exact same loving thing happened in the general (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
primary chat
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:remember when berman won Michigan despite losing in the polls and shocked everyone, and then Hillary's campaign immediately forgot about this slight to their dread queen and its implications and the exact same loving thing happened in the general actually it was the opposite. in typical hillary fashion, she had no time or support for anyone who didn't support her 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Also the kind of person that voted for Hillary in the primary would have voted for a literal dog for President in the GE if it was running as a Democrat. Are you actually trying to argue that Bernie would have lost Dem loyalists in California? Hill folk make this argument. If Bernie won the primary CA, OR and WA would have turned red!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:Fair, but how much does that really account for? apparently by enough that the dnc wasn't interested in keeping track of that in caucus states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
kind of embarrassing that bernie sanders lost to the only person who could lose to donald trump imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I've said it before, the Dems always want to nominate the boringest savviest policy wonk and the GOP always want to nominate the blandest Jesusiest sweatervest and if one of them manages to not do that they'll probably win the general because it turns out independents hate both of those things  Fullhouse posted:about 30 million people voted in the Dem primary this year, and each candidate received more than twice that many votes in the general. primary success is not general success lol bernie would have won in a drat landslide The crux of the argument though, appears to be that since Hillary lost the same states she lost in the general as the primary, Bernie would have won. The problem is if a, then b. If one factor would replicate itself in the general, then the same factor applied to his opponent would work the same also. Otherwise, there is no argument because there is no way to tell. If the issue is specifically white male and female independents, we have to start thinking about why this group would specifically prefer Bernie, and without Bernie chose to either stay home or vote for Trump. Of which there are a variety, many of which are less than attractive. By the way independents as defined in politics normally tend to be centrists, not progressives. Progressives tend to vote D in elections in order to get in progressive candidates at the local level. Progressive politicians tend to join the Democratic Party in order to further their career and effectuate change. So I'm not imagining a sea of people with truly progressive agendas crying about a failed candidate when it's time to do what needs to be done, or weeping over a man who is now too old to run in 2020, when even more needs to be done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
see, i've been avoiding enforcing the primary salt rule because i do find it too vague. what constitutes "primary salt" and what constitutes "primary chat", which i have been told is a mythical state where everybody can talk about the 2016 democratic primaries without resorting to petty infighting and references? but if anything is salt, this is it
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:kind of embarrassing that bernie sanders lost to the only person who could lose to donald trump imo Well tbqf, the DNC primary wasn't exactly neutral ground, as "Russia" helpfully pointed out. The General Election on the other hand was. Given the terribleness of Hillary, personally, and her campaign, I don't think these things are unrelated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:see, i've been avoiding enforcing the primary salt rule because i do find it too vague. what constitutes "primary salt" and what constitutes "primary chat", which i have been told is a mythical state where everybody can talk about the 2016 democratic primaries without resorting to petty infighting and references? I didn't WANT to get into a primary argument but when someone unironically argues that Bernie would have lost the GE because he lost the primary, I don't really know how else to react
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I didn't WANT to get into a primary argument but when someone unironically argues that Bernie would have lost the GE because he lost the primary, I don't really know how else to react you can ignore it
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
idk how you lose the GE because you lost the primary because by losing the primary you can't be in the GE but uh ok
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:35
|
|