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

Agree with the Jones guy on CNN, though. Bernie is going to have to start winning by bigger margins in the big states now that he has some momentum. Just winning 51-47 and 50-48 is still going to give Hillary the edge in delegates.
 
bravesnumberone said:
Agree with the Jones guy on CNN, though. Bernie is going to have to start winning by bigger margins in the big states now that he has some momentum. Just winning 51-47 and 50-48 is still going to give Hillary the edge in delegates.
Click to expand...

Only because of the sneaky super delegates thing. If not for that this would be a tight race.
 
weso1 said:
I think tonight gives Trump a better argument in the general election because Hillary suddenly gives an example of the polls being wrong in Michigan, which just happens to be the state that Trump has been pumping up as an example of a state that he could win in the general election. It's a strong argument to present to the establishment.
Click to expand...

Very true. Hillary is losing the white vote pretty steadily and Trump is extremely strong with that. Not the same demographic of white voters supporting Sanders, but it is a strong argument for Trump to present.
 
The Don said:
Sanders was down 20-25% a week ago. What a deficit he closed.
Click to expand...

Polls aren't perfect ever and primaries have wider variability than general elections, but this was pretty astounding. At this point, it's pretty obvious Sanders' supporters are more motivated than Clinton's.
 
weso1 said:
Only because of the sneaky super delegates thing. If not for that this would be a tight race.
Click to expand...

"super delegates" can change "their vote" whenever they want to

weird that super delegates are being talked about so much this time when just like Obama

Bernie is trailing early to the same person

but the SD's switched once it seemed the people wanted Obama 7 years ago
 
50PoundHead said:
Has Moore ever voted? The human condition is one of balancing evils against evils. Don't know how that calculus can be avoided at an elemental level.
Click to expand...

Sure he has as the article suggests and the article answers your point. It's not an absolutist position, after all Moore and I are both Calvinists.
 
Julio3000 said:
I think that, if nothing else, a strong showing—if not a win—by Sanders in Michigan means a couple of things. Most importantly, that the "anti-establishment"—i.e. the contra-conventional wisdom on trade and economics—isn't limited to the Republican primary. Secondarily, that the black vote isn't monolithic. Like I said, I may not necessarily support the messenger, but I'm glad the message is being sent.
Click to expand...

When it breaks up a bit more, I'll believe you.
 
BedellBrave said:
Sure he has as the article suggests and the article answers your point. It's not an absolutist position, after all Moore and I are both Calvinists.
Click to expand...

The article doesn't answer my point. Instead of making a difficult and serious choice when faced with what he terms "evil," he opted to throw his vote away. That's his prerogative, as it was when folks voted for Barry Commoner, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and chose to basically remove themselves from the solving of problems facing the nation. I'm not arguing that there isn't an elemental moral purpose that binds humanity, but you're never going to find that in politics, which is utilitarian in nature. You can only fill so many physical (and emotional) bellies and not everyone gets what they believe or, may actually, deserve. That's the nature of the game.

But my primary point still remains and Moore simply shrugs that "we'll never have a perfect candidate." In that statement, he insinuates that he is standing above the fray in some sort of demi-god status. Of course we'll never have a perfect candidate. We are all swimming in sin and we all need to be cognizant of that as we develop our stances to remedy the thorny problems facing the nation and the world. Balancing our self-interest with the needs of society as a whole is part of the social contract.

And Moore needs to check his history. Lincoln was a former Whig and the Whig party dissolved six years before he ran for President in 1860.
 
A lot of Democrats are probably pushing the whole superdelegate thing harder because they see Bernie as less electable than Obama was. I suspect that's a big part of it. At least that's a big part of the Clinton strategy. She's a progressive who gets things done! That, and you're a sexist and/or a right-winger if you dare disagree with her or don't support her candidacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top