2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

the same super delegates were against Obama when all this was happening when it was him and her

btw, super delegates are ****ing absurd but that is a different matter as well

doubt it will hurt, just as the pounding in NH shouldn't hurt Hillary too bad. those results are expected overall (depending on how SC goes of course)

will see how it goes from there cause i am not shocked that a european democratic socialist doesn't play that great in the south.
 
goldfly said:
the same super delegates were against Obama when all this was happening when it was him and her

btw, super delegates are ****ing absurd but that is a different matter as well

doubt it will hurt, just as the pounding in NH shouldn't hurt Hillary too bad. those results are expected overall (depending on how SC goes of course)

will see how it goes from there cause i am not shocked that a european democratic socialist doesn't play that great in the south.
Click to expand...

Hey iron pyrite. Did Bernie Sanders turn NH into the "Live for Free or Die State"? I expect sanders could win GA if he were to get about 25% of the black vote. Can he do it?

Fly have you finally shed the faux libertarian label?
 
What's shaking Vol?

should i really or even not really answer (like some claim here) any of those questions cause you are going to post and run like usual?

still not sure why you or anyone here has tried to pin me to one type of term but have fun with it
 
goldfly said:
everyone keeps trying to put Bernies ideas into the model we have today

there is a reason the word "revolution" is being used

what you are trying to do is put a square peg in a round hole
Click to expand...

So then explain to me the model where Bernie's math ads up?
 
I'm sure Christie won't be getting many Chrismas cards from the GOP this year...looks like he may have torpedoed their best Trump alternative (and their best chance to defeat Hilary), meanwhile it didn't benefit him personally one lick.
 
12728822_216969188650307_6034255447608920629_n.png
 
I have a hard time believing that Bush is out of it. Well-funded establishment candidates have a way of shambling back onto the scene long after we think they are buried.

He's been putting his eggs in the March basket for a while, he still has plenty of money, and there is less competition in the not-Trump Sweepstakes now. It looks like Christie is out, and Rubio may be reeling a bit.

The party bosses certainly don't want Trump to be president, and honestly I'm not sure that Trump wants to be president either. Being the front-runner in the race is a an ego trip, but the presidency isn't something you can sell off or declare bankruptcy and walk away from when you lose interest. If that train derails, Jebbers could certainly be there to pick up the pieces.

Wouldn't it be something if, after all this, we got Clinton v. Bush?
 
Julio3000 said:
I have a hard time believing that Bush is out of it. Well-funded establishment candidates have a way of shambling back onto the scene long after we think they are buried.

He's been putting his eggs in the March basket for a while, he still has plenty of money, and there is less competition in the not-Trump Sweepstakes now. It looks like Christie is out, and Rubio may be reeling a bit.

The party bosses certainly don't want Trump to be president, and honestly I'm not sure that Trump wants to be president either. Being the front-runner in the race is a an ego trip, but the presidency isn't something you can sell off or declare bankruptcy and walk away from when you lose interest. If that train derails, Jebbers could certainly be there to pick up the pieces.

Wouldn't it be something if, after all this, we got Clinton v. Bush?
Click to expand...

Bush's chances are creeping up in the predict it markets
 
We'll see. His unfavorability ratings are pretty high right now. If he creeps up it's because of electability, not favoribility.
 
chop2chip said:
Question for you political-philes...

If Bloomberg were to enter the race, would he have no chance?
Click to expand...

Bloomberg only gets in if Sanders gets the nomination and even then it would probably be a tough decision. I don't think he could win and he would probably put a Republican in the White House, but he could conceivably bring enough voters to the polls who might stay home to pad the Democratic count in some US Senate and US House races. I think the scary things for Dems if Sanders is on top of the ticket is what it means down the ballot. I talked to a pollster in Minnesota yesterday and Sanders is better than Hillary in rural parts of Minnesota and while that doesn't automatically translate to rural areas in other parts of the country, it does show that Hillary is a suburban candidate and maybe the year of the soccer mom has come and gone. The problem for Dems is that they have to reach beyond the young and the left-behind to win nationally and in tight congressional races and I don't know if Sanders can do that. Bloomberg probably hits the demographic that would be most disappointed if Hillary falters: middle to upper middle class professionals who are socially liberal.

I've made a short story long, but I don't think Bloomberg can win the Presidential election. That said, I think it's plausible that high-ranking Democrats are talking to him as part of a strategy to avoid a down-the-ballot drubbing ala 1980.

PS--Bush v. Clinton would probably drive turnout to historical lows.
 
Yeah Bloomberg is really not all that different from Clinton. It could be another Ross Perot situation if Bernie or the Republican nominee or both are having problems connecting with moderate, independent voters.
 
So, let me get this right. Sanders had Iowa stolen from him. And now even though he crushed Clinton in NH, she ends up winning two more delegates than he does because of super delegates. What do all you Ds think about that?
 
Christie drops out, surprising nobody after his 6th place finish.

Might endorse Jeb but apparently he spoke to Donald for a while on the phone.
 
When Clinton stomps Bernie in SC, will that mean that he will get two more total delegates from SC than she will? Or is it "heads" Clinton wins, "tails" Clinton wins?
 
I can't speak for the democrats... but the securing delegates is different than winning the popular vote. Ron Paul secured a lot of delegates in 2012, which is part of the reason why the RNC changed the rules to keep him shut out of the convention.

I'm guessing [MENTION=54]50PoundHead[/MENTION] could elaborate better
 
BedellBrave said:
So, let me get this right. Sanders had Iowa stolen from him. And now even though he crushed Clinton in NH, she ends up winning two more delegates than he does because of super delegates. What do all you Ds think about that?
Click to expand...

super delegates are a ****ing sham
 
The chairman of the Fed today said our deficit spending is not sustainable...

and yet Bernie is a "leading contender" for President. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top