Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[BannonsLiver]

1. Didn't Bernie have more individual donors in 2016?

Actually, I’m pretty sure he did.

So there, you’re wrong.

That was easy.

[NurseJackie]

9. Damn!

[wyldwolf]

14. Sander lost by over 3 million votes.

[BannonsLiver]

17. What "key" states?

I think originally your argument was Bernie was going to win the primary because he had the most individual donors.

Then when that got blown up right out of the gate you’re now transitioning into some sort of point about the general election, while also complaining bitterly about Bernie losing in 2016 because of delegate apportionment (he lost by 3 million votes), while also attempting to call into question the legitimacy of the current race with the “funny how that works” line.

There’s a lot going on. A lot of moving parts.

[SidDithers]

20. ...

Welcome to DU.



Sid

[wyldwolf]

15. well, that was a rude welcome to DU!

[we can do it]

22. Truth hurts sometimes.

[peggysue2]

21. LOL!!

BOOM.

[BannonsLiver]

3. There's what?

Bernie lost the 2016 CA primary by 6-7 points and was behind in the delegate count even before then.

What else ya got?

[emulatorloo]

4. No the Associated Press wrote an article on current delegate count.

DNC did not “call the primary,” that sounds like Putin propaganda.

Associated Press wrote an article on current delegate count prior to CA primary. I remember DU’ers being upset at the AP.

[BannonsLiver]

7. Well we can start with your premise not necessarily being a guarantee of success

Hillary had more donors than Fat Donnie, but she’s not president.

Beto torched Cruz in Texas when it came to individual donors and still lost.

Sometimes it’s a useful metric, sometimes it’s not.

[SouthernProgressive]

6. Please show me the data you have that shows the correlation between votes and

"boots on the ground" when compared to individual donations.

Maybe you should make the slightest effort in making your case before asking to be proven wrong. By the way, you were proven wrong in 2016.

The answer to your other question. Sanders won't recover from his great decline. It's over.

[SouthernProgressive]

10. You made an argument that you admittedly state has no backing.

Your ability to reply or post ops is not hampered by you being new. In no way at all.

You didn't make the case for your point in any way. I fully understand it's because you have no case to make because it is not a valid argument you have made in your op.

"So, "boots on the ground" during the Democratic primary process can result in a win in votes, but a loss in delegates. I would point to Wyoming as a prime example. Clinton lost 56-44, and received 11 delegates to Sander's 7. "

This shows you are completely uneducated on that to which you are speaking. As does the "question" you pose in the op.

[SouthernProgressive]

23. "Until I've made 10 posts, I have to wait 3 minutes between responses."

Such a thing would impact one's "ability" to make an argument in no way. Very strange you think it would.

"I'm pretty sure the case speaks for itself"

No, it does not. And you have again made no case.

"The OP was a tad satirical"

I would be offended if my name were Tad.

You keep moving all over the place.

You have been proven wrong by numerous people at this point. You have made no case to back up your argument.

[we can do it]

11. Not everyone who votes donates, or is even able to.

[George II]

16. Not everyone who contributes votes, either. There could be thousands of teenagers...

...contributing who aren't old enough to vote.

Plus we have to be careful to not confuse contributions with contributors. Already there's one person in only six months who has contributed to BS more than EIGHT HUNDRED times.

[wyldwolf]

12. "Prove me wrong."

Sanders lost in '16 by over 3 million votes despite having a record number of individual donations.

[peggysue2]

24. I mean, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here . . .

Really?? Could of fooled me because the horse is rotting on the ground.

Try harder.

[BannonsLiver]

27. Yeah, I think we're getting a good idea of what this is all about.

I’ve seen better. Will leave it at that to avoid a hide.

[wyldwolf]

25. that's pretty irrelevant

3.7 million votes couldn't have swung Clinton's way because some in the DNC likes her better than him.

[SouthernProgressive]

26. There you go. Full transparency it nice. You got there much quicker than I thought you would.

[JI7]

28. that was based on the Wikileaks Russian attack bs . we know the truth now and which campaigns

were being propped up and which one was targeted to attack.