The Great Debate Debate of 2016
note: I’m trade marking that so the standard ‘all rights reserved blah blah’ disclaimer applies.
4 Likes
Yup, it looks like Iowa will determine whether Sanders has a chance of making it a contest. If he loses Iowa he’s probably done. But if he wins Iowa, anything could happen. I don’t put much stock in the polling for other states seeing how historically that doesn’t seem to matter compared to the narrative that comes out of the first 4 contests.
1 Like
And I am saying…again…that you are very very wrong in that analysis. Bernie does have to win South Carolina, not merely get above 30%. Bernie also has to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Not in a close race…by huge blow outs in both places. Its how the delegate math works.
The races after IA and NH turn against Sanders in a big way. That is why Hillary has such huge leads all across the South… Because the make up of Democratic voters is not so incredibly vanilla as it is in Iowa and NH. Every poll, every where, has consistently shown that Bernie loses to Hillary among minorities…by a lot. And that is going to kill his hopes for winning the nomination.
2 Likes
You should look at the history of presidential primaries and how these things tend to go. Exceeding expectations is what changes the entire narrative and momentum of a presidential primary contest. That’s just how these things work.
The more I see/hear from you berns, the more I don’t like your behavior.
You are behaving as a child. You were all let’s debate, let’s debate. Hillary says yes…you insult her.
How about taking yes for an answer!
6 Likes
Election 2016 - Just a show about nothing.
note: also trademarking
1 Like
Sander has no chance, regardless of how Iowa turns out—and Nate Silver gives Hillary a 74% chance of winning there.
Bernie cannot overcome the math concerning delegates.
Ergo, he has no real chance of winning the nomination.
3 Likes
You’re paying too much attention to delegate math that hasn’t been added up yet. The allegiance of delegates in later states can change in a hurry based on the narrative of what emerges from the early contests.
Anyway, entire books have been written by political scientists describing the phenomenon I’m talking about; seizing the momentum and riding the wave in presidential primaries. It defies all notions of logic and convention that you’re trying to appeal to. There is no “national momentum”. You simply can’t count chickens before they’re hatched, and that’s what you’re doing by adding up “delegate math” of states that haven’t held primaries yet.
No crying now, Hillary. Your toady Debbie Wasserman Shultz is the architect of the current situation.
Too late you realize the value of wooing the voter over that of a coronation by political servants.
‘For they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind’.
Seeing how wrong Nate Silver has been on Trump, I wouldn’t be citing his word as gospel. He’s even the first to admit that pre-primary polling isn’t always the most reliable.
You’re making the same mistake as Davey, thinking you can add up delegate math prior to states holding their primaries yet. It’s a flawed concept.
The Great Debate Debate of 2016TM
Fixed it.
Election 2016 - Just a show about nothingTM
1 Like
It certainly is entertaining reading the wails and groans of HRC’s sycophants on here as they realize the unintended consequences of Debbie’s decision to deny Sander’s original request for more debates. Hillary got what she wanted- why are you complaining now?
Absolutely hilarious.
1 Like
For Sanders, no, there isn’t.
1 Like
I agree, but I thought that the reason Bernie can be trusted is because he just isn’t like any other politician.
4 Likes
Hillary’s side has made an offer. Bernie’s side has made a counteroffer. Ball’s in Hillary’s court.
Like it or not, Bernie’s got leverage here – Hillary needs another debate before New Hampshire a lot more than he does. If she doesn’t want to negotiate, and is willing to lose her opportunity to debate with him again before New Hampshire, that’s fine. The DNC has said they will only re-visit their debate schedule after New Hampshire. If she wants to wait until then to schedule further debates (or reverse her position again and oppose them) that’s fine too. It’s up to her.
A very reasonable counter-offer is on the table, one that should be no problem for her to agree to if she’s telling the truth when she claims she wants more debates too. So she can accept the counteroffer, make her own public counteroffer, offer to negotiate privately with the other two candidates, or ignore the counteroffer and stick to her guns (but risk not getting the New Hampshire debate she is obviously anxious for). So, yup, the ball’s in her court whether she wants it there or not. Bernie’s made his position on additional debates quite clear. What she does (or doesn’t do) next will help clarify hers.
3 Likes
The only momentum right now is all Sanders. Like I said, national momentum doesn’t exist in presidential primaries.
1 Like
inorite?
2 Likes
not to be an idiot, I would think.
Mxyztplk: There is no “national momentum”.
.
brooklyndweller: For Sanders, no, there isn’t.
Actually, there is. Or at least there has been over the past couple of months, according to the national polling, where he has cut her leads from the 20s and 30s down to the mid-teens. Whether that momentum is continuing or not we’ll only know when a little more time passes and the next batch of polls comes out.
1 Like
So much for Bernie being different, yadda yadda yadda.
Bernie’s new logo: “Bernie Sanders - acts just like every other politician”.
Btw, it’s not quite the same, but it’s kind of funny how this move strangely parallels Trump refusing to participate in the GOP debates now that he’s ahead…
2 Likes