Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arx]

The linked article is Clinton refusing a debate.

In favour of doing more campaigning instead. Which seemed to be her main point in the first quote, with debates as a secondary thing.

[Orange Wizard]

On FOX news.  Which even moderates can tell has an overwhelming conservative bias.  They're basically an arm of the Republican party, which means they'd try to destroy Hillary.  They'd rather see Bernie in office, or more likely defeated by Trump.

Really? I would have thought that Hillary would be favoured over Sanders, seeing as she's less RADICALCOMMUNIST

The linked article is Clinton refusing a debate.

In favour of doing more campaigning instead. Which seemed to be her main point in the first quote, with debates as a secondary thing.

Oh, okay. I just looked at the headline.

[Frumple]

Folks've been ragging on clinton a lot longer and a lot louder than they've been ragging on sanders, OW. There's a lot of folks out there that believe that, while sanders may be a crazy commie thing, clinton is literally the devil's flaming scrotum come for their women.

[Andux]

The linked article is Clinton refusing a debate.

In favour of doing more campaigning instead. Which seemed to be her main point in the first quote, with debates as a secondary thing.

Oh, okay. I just looked at the headline.

For context, at the time she said that, she was pushing for Obama to agree to a final debate before the California primary--at that point in the race, she was in a similar position, delegate-wise, to where Bernie is now; however, the Dems had already held a metric crapton of debates over the course of the 2008 primary season.

Back in February of this year, Clinton and Sanders agreed (at Clinton's request) to hold 4 more debates before the end of primary season; only 3 of those have been held so far.

[Orange Wizard]

Folks've been ragging on clinton a lot longer and a lot louder than they've been ragging on sanders, OW. There's a lot of folks out there that believe that, while sanders may be a crazy commie thing, clinton is literally the devil's flaming scrotum come for their women.

I really need to stop expecting rationality from... anyone, really

[Sheb]

Basically, since FOX news can get Sanders to attack Clinton, that's attacks the GOP don't have to pay for.

[mainiac]

at that point in the race, she was in a similar position, delegate-wise, to where Bernie is now

Obama lead by about 100 pledged delegates at this point in 2008.  The popular vote was a dead heat, Clinton was maybe a couple hundred thousand votes behind.  That is about 0.2%.  Obama had a roughly 2% lead in the pledged delegates despite his popular vote lead being a rounding error because he had on average won states with slightly fewer delegates per vote.  If you counted Michigan's primary, which was discounted by the democratic party*, then Clinton won the popular vote.

Clinton currently leads Sanders by 271 pledged delegates.  That is 8% of the delegates so far.  The split in the popular vote is 2.4 million votes if you want to be generous to Sanders and count caucus votes as super bonus votes that count for the popular vote in primaries that never happened in caucus states.  If you want to use the numbers as they are, Clinton has a lead of 3 million votes.  That is 13%.

There is a huge, huge difference between these situations if you can be bothered to actually look at the facts.  Clinton was just barely behind in a race that was going to a photo finish.  She was caught up in the hype but that's because there was something to be hyped about.  Both Clinton and Obama could honestly claim to have more votes.  I'm not saying she should have won.  In the end she conceded defeat because Obama had more delegates.  But on May 23rd she still had a case to make.  It wasn't the best case but it's understandable that she would keep pushing because she still actually had a slim but tangible way to win.  She just needed to convince the super delegates that she had a mandate on the basis of the popular vote.

Sanders on the other hand does not have a mandate.  He lost.  He lost overwhelmingly.  It was closer then people expected perhaps but it still wasn't close.  The way 538 described it recently was like a football game where the underdog puts up a fieldgoal early then falls behind by two touchdowns and never gets within 7 points of the lead for the rest of the game.

Honestly I'll admit I'm kinda being a dick and rubbing it in here.  But it seems like again and again people just argue from bullshit and wishful thinking.

YOUR OPINION IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.


*Wait they took votes away from Clinton?  It's almost like the DNC has rules and doesn't give people special treatment, even if they are Hillary Clinton.  It's almost like accusing the process of being rigged is a steaming pile of horseshit.

[Sheb]

Honestly I'll admit I'm kinda being a dick and rubbing it in here.  But it seems like again and again people just argue from bullshit and wishful thinking.

YOUR OPINION IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.

HAllelujah!

[Orange Wizard]

2% and 8% are not dissimilar

It's almost like accusing the process of being rigged is a steaming pile of horseshit.

Not rigged, but massively overcomplicated and more unwieldy than a double-bladed zweihander

[mainiac]

2% and 8% are not dissimilar

But losing by .2% and 13% aren't similar.  And winning by .2% and losing by 13% sure aren't similar.

[Orange Wizard]

Um, you're comparing votes. Andux was talking about delegates.

[Solifuge]

Honestly, I think that the residual Bernie Sanders campaign is less about trying to be president at this point, and more about proving that there's a pretty significant chunk of the US Electorate who would support Democratic Socialist candidates and policies. It also demonstrates that a candidate pushing for those policies is able to garner the support of a large number of disaffected voters who otherwise don't get involved in the process, despite the fact that "Socialism" is still a dirty word in much of the US. It's more about demonstration of a principal, and a statement by his supporters, rather than a legitimate campaign at this point.

I don't think that's a bad thing, either... far from it. Hoping that the relative success of the Sanders campaign, and the fallout of this latest chapter in the hijacking of the GOP by backwards-looking bigots and fundamentalists, will both do something to shake up the status quo of the present Two Party System. Sociologically speaking, we're going through a lot of the End-Of-Dynasty type death throes demonstrated by regime changes in China and Rome... tensions keep getting higher, faith in the government is declining every year, social unrest continues to simmer, and our media keeps painting dreams of revolutions and society-collapsing apocalypses. Forgive the grandiosity here, but I'm hoping this means we have a shot at steering toward major systemic reforms, rather than letting it implode under it's own incompetence, war, rebellion, and the general dissatisfaction of the masses.

[Sheb]

Even looking at delegates, 2 and 8% aren't similar this far in the race. The Clinton lead is 8% of the delegate so far. But given how many have been awarded, this mean that Sanders need a lead of 30% in the remaining pledged delegate to make up is loss. That's 65% of the vote. He's been winning vote recently, but even in Oregon he only made 56% of the vote, 10% short. And his chances in California don't look good.

Being behind by 2% at this stage of the primary would be very different. You'd only need a 7% lead to make up that loss (So, 54 to 46). That's the kind of number Hillary could still hope for back in 2008, and the kind of number that would still give Sanders a chance.

[Andux]

*Wait they took votes away from Clinton?  It's almost like the DNC has rules and doesn't give people special treatment, even if they are Hillary Clinton.  It's almost like accusing the process of being rigged is a steaming pile of horseshit.

Howard Dean was the DNC chair in 2008; he's always struck me as a decent guy, and I would trust him to be impartial. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, on the other hand, strikes me as corrupt, underhanded, and self-serving; also, having the co-chair of a candidate's earlier campaign in charge of the DNC when the same candidate is running again seems like a major conflict of interest.

[scriver]

*Wait they took votes away from Clinton?  It's almost like the DNC has rules and doesn't give people special treatment, even if they are Hillary Clinton.  It's almost like accusing the process of being rigged is a steaming pile of horseshit.

I am having trouble formulating myself in a way that doesn't end up bring passive aggressive snark, but I wanted to make a point here about how the "process" is in actuality many separate processes, each which can be rigged in either direction on an individual basis, without the whole sum of the process having to be rigged either towards the same candidate or at all.