Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You asked me this question about 10 days ago, and I said I will answer you in about 10 days. Well now I can answe you with Nebraska's results.
Without caucuses Bernie sanders would not have been competitive against Hillary.
That's literally absurd. I know you are extremely partisan but this takes it to a new laughable level. Nebraska "primary" is complete and utter meaningless.
That's literally absurd. I know you are extremely partisan but this takes it to a new laughable level. Nebraska "primary" is complete and utter meaningless.
Except for proving that Bernie's claims that when there are more votes, he wins is demonstrably false. Of course, I don't know why it should have to be proven given that the results in the largest population states have already proven it.
Except for proving that Bernie's claims that when there are more votes, he wins is demonstrably false. Of course, I don't know why it should have to be proven given that the results in the largest population states have already proven it.
Just more deliberate misunderstanding of what he means...Impossible to discuss rationally at that point.
She is going to campaign more after all. I believe she will be running general election based ads, but she will be running them in upcoming states after all.
I don't think it was a silly tactic, I think Bernie is being a jerk in the face of mathematical elimination. By this point in 2008, even though Hillary hadn't dropped out (which the Clinton camp is emphatically not saying Bernie needs to do), she had begun to soften her tone and make more of a general election, more generic "Democratic candidate" type pitch - reflecting that she still had a far greater mathematical chance of winning but recognizing that it was getting tougher and tougher and she didn't want to damage the Dem ticket for the GE. Bernie is all about Bernie, not about the party that he clearly doesn't really want to support despite demanding they hand him their nomination.
I would say she should station in California for a few weeks starting next Wednesday after Kentucky and Oregon are done. If she loses California the narrative will be really really bad... The other 8 contests don't really matter as much:
New Jersey (126) : she has the upper hand there, just get bill and Chelsea to campaign for her
Puerto Rico (60) : she also has the upper hand or it will be close, so it doesn't matter much
New Mexico (34) : it's closed primary so I don't see how Bernie can win much
Montana (21) : hopeless for her, don't waste time there
District of Columbia (20) : cakewalk for her and she still has time after California votes
South Dakota (20) : maybe a bit better than Montana and ND but also not worth the time
North Dakota (18) : hmm lets hope it's another Wyoming instead of another Alaska, next:
U.S. Virgin Islands (7) : bill will campaign there which is great but please don't schedule anything there afterward
That's literally absurd. I know you are extremely partisan but this takes it to a new laughable level. Nebraska "primary" is complete and utter meaningless.
I am not saying in any way the caucus results should be invalidated, I understand the rules and try to abide by them, I am just saying Bernie may not be able to shrink Hillary's popular vote lead even if all 57 states held primaries
I am not saying in any way the caucus results should be invalidated, I understand the rules and try to abide by them, I am just saying Bernie may not be able to shrink Hillary's popular vote lead even if all 57 states held primaries
We were discussing what would have happened to the popular vote if the South held caucuses and the west held primaries instead of the opposite.
We were discussing what would have happened to the popular vote if the South held caucuses and the west held primaries instead of the opposite.
And Nebraska shows that it's not clear that Bernie would have won primaries in the west let alone won them by the kinds of margins that he got in the caucuses.
As for the south argument, yes of course math says that there would have been fewer votes in caucuses, but it does nothing to support the argument that more votes means Bernie wins.
The reality is that caucuses are not democratic and don't necessarily reflect the position of the larger electorate. They should be replaced by primaries to allow more registered Democrats to participate in the primary process.
I agree. Clinton would have far, far less popular vote margin over Sanders as a HUGE number of her margin has come from the South. You also know full well that VOTER TURNOUT relative to the past is what he talks about when he talks about larger chance to win. You know this is what he talks about, but you deliberately misunderstand in order to serve a partisan agenda, so this is just a dead end discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clinton leads Sanders 57% to 38 in most recent California poll
