2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton
"Say whatever you want about Clintons lengthy résuméand her credentials are indeed impressiveher performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate."
-snip-
"Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charismaAl Gorefailed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?"
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/14/this_is_one_weak_nominee_hillary_clintons_problem_isnt_bernie_sanders_its_hillary_clinton/
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)and over 3+ million fewer voters?
Al Gore rolled over ... that's something we won't see from Secretary Clinton.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)So it's irrelevant.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)a well entrenched and sophisticate Corporatist Oligarchical criminal syndicate... and doing quite well considering the "FIX" being in against him!
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)MFM008
(19,776 posts)from the state of delusion.
synergie
(1,901 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)She must be damned exhausted, what with lugging around all of those delegates and votes. And they just keep piling up, too.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)version 2.0. If she is so strong, why has she only won 15 out of 30 states after Super Tuesday?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... why does she have hundreds more delegates than Bernie, and millions more votes?
Oh, BTW, in case you don't get how this is done, winning "states" is meaningless. It's winning delegates that counts.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)Why has she lost half the contests since March 1st? HRC just got lucky in that the DNC scheduled the southern primaries first where she had more support. She has earned fewer delegates since March 15th than Sanders has.
In golf, there is a saying that it is better to be lucky than good. I think that applies to this primary season for HRC.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... on something other than a BernieMath Calculator.
HRC "got lucky in that the DNC scheduled the southern primaries first where she had more support"?
How do you figure that? Whether the southern primaries were counted first or last, the numbers would have been the same. What difference does it make which states came first, last, or in between to the overall count?
lancer78
(1,495 posts)the numbers would have been the same. I can argue that if the southern states had gone last, more people would have heard Sanders message and might have voted for him.
And according to CNN, since March 15th, Sanders has gotten 18 more pledged delegates than HRC. I don't think CNN uses BernieMath.
My original point still stands. A politician as powerful as HRC should have been able to force Sanders out around March 15th. Hell, even Trump has managed to force all his opponents out.
And yes, for me it is personal. Three of my friends from high school died in Iraq because of Hillary's vote for her political expedience.
And before you say "Even if she had voted against it, we would have still gone to war", I think if HRC had stood there and used her and her husband's influence to pressure the democrats to stand together and not vote for the IWR, than the vote would have failed 51 to 49 (Chafee was the only Republican to vote against it), and my friends might still be alive today.
synergie
(1,901 posts)It would matter, for it would not have ignored the anointed one, cone to save us all with REVOLUTION!
pansypoo53219
(20,906 posts)conventional wisdom. as somebody pointed out. mrs more war if she wins also means RATINGS. ITS ALL ABOUT TEEVEE GNEWZ RATINGS. war = RATINGS.
jamese777
(546 posts)50,997,897
George W. Bush: 50,456,002
Gallup Poll Most Admired Woman
1990: Margaret Thatcher
1991: Barbara Bush
1992: Barbara Bush
1993: Hillary Rodham Clinton
1994: Hillary Rodham Clinton
1995: Mother Teresa
1996: Mother Teresa
1997: Hillary Rodham Clinton
1998: Hillary Rodham Clinton
1999: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2000: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2001: Laura Bush
2002: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2003: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2004: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2005: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2006: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2007: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2008: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2009: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2010: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2011: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2012: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2013: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2014: Hillary Rodham Clinton
2015: Hillary Rodham Clinton
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)[link:|
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)information voters and have naturally chosen Bernie, as would all people on all contests EVAH!
If only they had gotten to hear about the word of Bernie! But they have not, thus, we must Bern it down, for the good of the world, so safety Revolution Messaging, the font of the holy word of Bernie.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Sanders just insist on staying in but she locked this up early March.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)The Hillbot brigade just cannot gettit through their thick skulls that she is absolutely despised by a significant portion of the American electorate. Being kind, at Hillary's BEST she comes across as INSINCERE!
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)[link:|
synergie
(1,901 posts)The pundits who pretended that he fad a chance and did not question the disconnect between his record and his rhetoric, that undermine her in every way? Sure thing buddy. What color is the sky in backward Bizarro Bernie world?
lancer78
(1,495 posts)has she lost 15 out of 30 contests since Super Tuesday? She is Martha Coakley version 2.0
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Wins or losses of contests (states) are meaningless. It's the number of DELEGATES that count.
Are you THAT new to the process that you don't understand the concept?
MFM008
(19,776 posts)in an article last week.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)It's like clockwork.
synergie
(1,901 posts)What can only be described as idiotville. Between this guy, HA HA and his special spinning, and math averse Abrahmson, they seem to be committing suicide. They were once relevant and credible, now the site is simply pathetic.
Catering to those who need fiction to keep the delusion alive.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)She has lost 15 out of 30 contests since Super Tuesday. People just don't like voting someone who feels "Entitled" to a government post. Coakley felt that she was entitled to Ted Kennedy's seat, took the D after her name for granted, and got beat by someone who once posed nude for Cosmo. 'Nuff said.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)The HRC brigade is willfully blind
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... are you going to post the same thing, despite its utter irrelevance?
"People just don't like voting someone who feels 'Entitled' to a government post."
Apparently millions more voters have voted for HRC than for Bernie. Her alleged "sense of entitlement" doesn't seem to be working against her, does it? Or, more to the point, voters aren't even considering that "sense of entitlement" you keep insisting is out there.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)They are sensing it with HRC. The most powerful woman in the Democratic Party (And in American politics) for the last quarter century is having problems eliminating a Senator from a tiny state who just joined the Democratic party 8 months ago. Something is working against Clinton in a big way.
You know how you meet or see someone, either in person or on tv, and there is just something off-putting about them? That is how many people feel about HRC.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)HRC eliminated that "senator from a tiny state" a long time ago.
"You know how you meet or see someone, either in person or on tv, and there is just something off-putting about them? That is how many people feel about HRC."
The fact that HRC is hundreds of delegates and millions of votes ahead of BS would be a pretty good indicator that the "many people who feel that about HRC" aren't enough to make a difference in who has won the nomination.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)by the grace of the super delegates, 400 of who pledged their votes before the first primary vote was cast.
MFM008
(19,776 posts)unlike MC. Who was a bad campaigner and a bad debater.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)you listed (bad campaigner). Lost one campaign to a freshman senator and is barely squeaking by against a person who only joined the party 8 months ago.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... HRC has a vote/delegate lead that Bernie can't possibly come close to, no less overcome.
That may be "barely squeaking by" in BernieWorld. In the real world, it's something more substantial and - oh, what the hell. Why bother?
Go back to your BernieMath Calculator and have yourself a great night!
lancer78
(1,495 posts)get to within 100 pledged delegates of HRC when all is said and done. For the most powerful woman in American politics for the past quarter century, that is a pretty poor showing.
snot
(10,478 posts)um, thanks.
jamese777
(546 posts)As of May 15, 2016
Hillary Clinton: 12,728,415
Donald Trump: 11,025,505
Bernie Sanders: 9,627,509
lancer78
(1,495 posts)popular vote that might mean something. PBO got 93% of the vote in Washington DC, yet he got the same 3 EV than if he had only gotten 51%.
jamese777
(546 posts)You do understand that there are no electoral votes involved in deciding a party's nominee, right?
This discussion is about the primaries, not the general election. There is a direct correlation between the number of pledged delegates a candidate accumulates and the popular vote in states that use a primary system.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...and achieved millions more votes than Bush, if not reflected in Florida.
Hillary is far beyond what he achieved in that election and Trump isn't Bush.