Democratic Primaries

FBaggins

(26,721 posts)

33. The quoted individual doesn't understand the primary rules

Mon Feb 24, 2020, 11:12 PM

Feb 2020

Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2020, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Candidates further splitting the vote... but falling below 15% in a given state... actually help the front runner. Bernie is now as likely as not to win the nomination outright... and it’s BECAUSE the vote is being split so many ways.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I would be interested in comments on the following quote: [View all] Disaffected Feb 2020 OP

That's the way I see it. LaurenOlimina Feb 2020 #1

The super delegates will break for a more moderate lapfog_1 Feb 2020 #2

Let them whine. The Democrats will gain more independents and OnDoutside Feb 2020 #9

In the end, I believe that many Democrats will probably follow the advice given by Jane Sanders... NurseJackie Feb 2020 #10

That could happen. David__77 Feb 2020 #3

Does this astute political commentator have a name? ChubbyStar Feb 2020 #4

GMTA. n/t rzemanfl Feb 2020 #8

Yes but i don't think it's relevant or appropriate to post Disaffected Feb 2020 #11

Is the point valid or not? Orrex Feb 2020 #12

The "point" seems unfocused and based on unsupported assumptions. bluewater Feb 2020 #14

Seems like a fairly straightforward and well-reasoned assessment, but whatevs. Orrex Feb 2020 #17

Very sloppy "logic". A 5 way slpit does not mean an EQUAL split. bluewater Feb 2020 #20

I don't think anything in the OP implied an "equal" or even close to equal Disaffected Feb 2020 #21

SO who to trust more... 538 or an anonymous vague OP quote... lol bluewater Feb 2020 #22

I'm not asking anyone at all to chose one over the other. Disaffected Feb 2020 #23

Why complain at me then? I gave my comments , since you asked for them. bluewater Feb 2020 #24

You kind of explicitly proposed a false dichotomy Orrex Feb 2020 #29

BZZZT Extremely bad logic. Poor rhetoric too. bluewater Feb 2020 #34

I used "kind of" because I didn't want to call you liar. Have it your way. Orrex Feb 2020 #36

Ad hominem attack duly noted. LOL bluewater Feb 2020 #37

You know what? I see my error now, and you're correct. Orrex Feb 2020 #41

Don't you know what a comparison is? HeartlandProgressive Feb 2020 #39

LOL. Sure. Orrex Feb 2020 #40

On second thought, you're correct Orrex Feb 2020 #42

Your objection hinges on an "equal split" that was not part of the original statement Orrex Feb 2020 #27

Thank you Disaffected Feb 2020 #28

+1 2naSalit Feb 2020 #30

Strawman deflection noted. Did you not also read the body of that post? bluewater Feb 2020 #31

Oh, you're one of those. I see. Orrex Feb 2020 #32

"The split doesn't preclude it; it simply makes it astronomically unlikely." LOL bluewater Feb 2020 #35

My dry cleaner is a long time friend, I have known him since high school ChubbyStar Feb 2020 #15

LOL. I misread your tone. My mistake. Orrex Feb 2020 #18

it rather depends on the delegate count, though, doesn't it? unblock Feb 2020 #5

That's been the general consensus. Nevada made that less likely, but it's still possible. Garrett78 Feb 2020 #6

Could you attribute the quote? I agree, but some folks who don't rzemanfl Feb 2020 #7

I think it was my dry cleaner ChubbyStar Feb 2020 #13

Way too soon for such speculation Raven123 Feb 2020 #16

If Sanders does not have 1991 delegates, it goes to 2nd ballot and so on... Moderateguy Feb 2020 #19

that's... myohmy2 Feb 2020 #25

It is for this very reason that I think Bloomberg will be our nominee. Laelth Feb 2020 #26

The quoted individual doesn't understand the primary rules FBaggins Feb 2020 #33

The OP's logic is very flawed. bluewater Feb 2020 #38