I guess Carson wants to burn through some more money before dropping out.
I guess Carson wants to burn through some more money before dropping out.
Non-partisan analyses of his HC plan came out last week projecting a shortfall of between $3 and 14 trillion over the next 10 years. I think I'd need to see more of the details in this "new model" ...Originally Posted by goldfly
Hey, not to stand in the way of a good narrative, but are we still going with the "Clinton won 6/6 coin flips" thing?
Jim Gilmore's people called my paper and want us to do a phone or in-person interview with him. Lulz.
I think this race needs more Gilmore.
SAV needs to do an AMA like we did with Brian Jordan.
jpx7 (02-10-2016), The Chosen One (02-10-2016)
I don't know. Should we not? Haven't been keeping close enough tabs over the past few days. What was the final verdict? Let me guess, Hillary won fair and square. Nothing ever to see here. Move along? Isn't that always the case - the perpetual narrative?
I tend to agree. Something's not quite right when you get your arse kicked and yet come out as the delegate winner or tied. Hey but that's the way the good old parties run things. She and Wasserman-Shultz have the super delegates all taken care of. Have your little primaries if it makes you feel better. Politics is such a farce. Wake me up when we have someone in office not owned by Goldman Sachs.
Last edited by BedellBrave; 02-10-2016 at 04:39 PM.
Carson is my bet to be the VP nomination.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Securing delegates isn't like the electoral college. Each party in each state has a different formula for choosing delegates. In addition, the Democrats have super-delegates. I believe the Democrats have more delegates overall and they parcel them out in a variety of ways. And, of course, it can get really crazy in caucus states because those delegates are chosen locally. For instance, if Clinton ran stronger in heavily-populated areas but Sanders won sparsely-populated areas, but their statewide preference was the same, Clinton would likely have more delegates. That's why straw polls can be very misleading. If a candidate runs evenly throughout the state, he or she could end up with less delegates than if their strength is concentrated.
Parties are generally built for insiders (and incumbents). Rules are often stacked, as they were against Ron Paul. It used to get really nuts when the candidates were chosen at the national convention. Back in those days, it got to be all about credentialing and seating of delegates and "drop" rules for candidates who lagged after several ballots.
BedellBrave (02-10-2016), jpx7 (02-10-2016), sturg33 (02-10-2016)
Hey, man, I'm probably more favorably disposed to your point of you then you will credit. If there was a supposed "tie," I would be ****ing shocked if the Clintons did not win it. Just as I would be shocked if the Bushes did not win a closely contested election… Sort of like in 2000.
But, really, is the coin flip thing for real, or isn't it? Or is it, you know, a case of confirmation bias? Is it legit, or is it just the narrative that you like because of your preconceived notions about Hills?
The issue/idea behind Super Delegates is to give more weight to the party. Super delegates are given out by the party. So basically assuming Hillary has like 75% of the superdelegates which she could have more, that gives her almost a 500 delegate advantage. In 2008 she carried 49% of the delegates. If her and Obama flipped on Super Delegates She would have had the nomination. So Super Delegates are very important in close elections. Say she gets 500 super delegates, She only needs 1882 delegates to win. which shouldn't be too hard.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I was hard on Bernie last night. He defeated one of the most powerful political families in the United States. He did so by being anti-American in many respects but there are some things he is right about and those deserved to be recognized.
Political elites do control the process too much. Money does influence power, it always has and always will. We need criminal justice reform, we simply put too many people in cages unnecessarily. We do spend too much on oversea military operations and get involved in far too many civil conflicts.
That's pretty much it. Everything else, he's a neurotic psychopath hellbent on destroying the American way of life and making us all equally poor.
You described like 70% of his platforms. I'd be curious as to where Bernie would fall on your isidewith poll.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
No charisma and isn't great on the issues. He's not an insider. He brings nothing.
I think Kasich and Rubio are the 2 best VP candidates. Governor and senator from key states.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I got him like 55%.
His economic policies are so bad I could never support him. Economy is most important to me...
Lordy, Ben Carson is not going to get elected to do anything, ever.
I'll go back earlier, as recently as 1968, when nominees were selected by party bosses in back rooms.
At least this is in partial sunshine
Even so it is a 19th century process
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Being a Sanders supporter am sure he knew the rules going in.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote