Nevada called early for Clinton. This was a state Sanders had to win and had to win by a decent margin - therefore making it one that was on paper more favourable to him anyway - so let's please bring an end to the 'SANDERS IS GOING TO WIN BY A LANDSLIDE' nonsense (naming no name).

 

:lol: I do admire how shameless your goalpost-moving is.

:lol: I do admire how shameless your goalpost-moving is.

I'm not! I've stayed pretty constant in taking the Cook delegates projection as a base - if Sanders was going to stand a chance of winning the nomination, he *had* to win a state where he needed to beat Hillary by five delegates in order to get 50/50 on pledged delegates overall (without even considering superdelegates). I appreciate that wasn't *your* argument, but it's one being raised as a realistic prospect here by some and a lot on social media/actual media. I still think Hillary has this tied up, but so long as some people will argue that a Sanders win is at all a realistic outcome I will point out exactly why it isn't.

 

Things have obviously shifted from him only standing a chance in Iowa or New Hampshire, but then the debate over what outcome Sanders can expect has shifted as well. Given Clinton's winning easily in states he'd have to win comfortably to stand a chance I can't see him winning that many though.

 

And yeah, the whole 'this shows the mood of the base' thing is still apt, but the problem I have is that it's something Hillary has responded a lot to - read a lot of her current positions on paper and it's not anything most Sanders supporters would disagree with. A lot of the current criticisms of Hillary are downright unfair in terms of what anyone could realistically do to allay them, because so many of them are personalised. 'You seem untrustworthy', 'you changed positions on XYZ in the past', 'you'll just say anything to get elected' - also a lot of the time based on things plenty of other politicians have done which they haven't taken anywhere near as much stick and vitriol on. The other big irony is that the only realistic answer for what could allay Sanders supporters professing to be displeased with Hillary (i.e., Clinton taking on his positions wholesale) would just affirm all of those criticisms!

You say that like neither Hillary nor Obama are concerned about inequality.

 

The point was clearly made with reference to the electorate.

 

I'm sure even Reegan would argue he cared about inequality, doesn't mean you will do anything radical to prevent it.

Reagan made a pretty big point of not caring about inequality! His gig was kind of based on the whole 'you reap what you sow' thing.

If asked face to face he would t say that though, my point being you can say you care about it all you want but don't bother doing anything about it.

Jeb Bush has dropped out. Well, that was humiliating :lol:

I'd give 3 cheers as payback for the loss of 2000 to his idiot chard-hugging brother winning were it not for the fact that 3 frontrunners are now infinitely worse than JB :(

Sanders has done ok in Nevada, he may not win now but at least he has helped the debate in the Democratic Party!

Another win for Trump! Super-Tuesday next week.

Or as I prefer to think of it, Apocalypse Tuesday, as simple folk who have no knowledge of the world, politics or running a country or anything much help select a nasty vindictive super-rich selfish spoilt idiot to make the USA a better place. America, where any rich brat can grow up to be the most powerful man in the world, and any non-millionaire can't.

 

Just saying.... :P

Sanders meanwhile is slaying and so we'll have a battle of the outsiders.

Is he SLAYING though? Last time I checked Hilary had 52 pledged delegates and Sanders 51.

Trends, Oli Oli, trends! He is up to 90% in some states. Hillary has divided the base and wouldn't even win with Trump even if she scraped the nomination which she won't now the trend is clear.

Trends, Oli Oli, trends! He is up to 90% in some states. Hillary has divided the base and wouldn't even win with You-Know-Who even if she scraped the nomination which she won't now the trend is clear.

Where?

In the most recent Democratic nationwide aggregate polls Clinton has at least a 5% lead over Sanders, so if he is over 90% in some states then that would probably indicate that Clinton is over 90% in other states?

Well you know Michael, never one to let facts get in the way of grand sweeping generalisations.

 

The more and more this goes on, the more I think it's going to be a Clinton v Trump race which scares me, for reasons I explained a few pages back.

The more Trump goes on actually getting the votes the more that's starting to worry me too. And I was thinking a month or so ago that Clinton would be the safe option against him.

90% in Vermont and rapidly catching up in every single stae that isn't North Carolina, overtaking her in aggregate polls recently AND coming from a 50 point disadvantage AND with more donations AND with more grassroots campaigns AND more social and media presence ...

 

These trends are very clear. He will get he nomination or at least divide the base so much, going to a brokered convention, which supports Hills, that it practically gifts the presidency to Trump.

Edited February 24, 20169 yr by Virginia's Walls

90% in Vermont and rapidly catching up in every single stae that isn't North Carolina, overtaking her in aggregate polls recently AND coming from a 50 point disadvantage AND with more donations AND with more grassroots campaigns AND more social and media presence ...

 

These trends are very clear. He will get he nomination or at least divide the base so much, going to a brokered convention, which supports Hills, that it practically gifts the presidency to Trump.

After all, I'm a stone heavier than I was last year, so I'm obviously going to be 50 stone heavier in fifty years.

Bernie Sanders being at 90% in the polls IN HIS OWN STATE. Well, if ever there was proof he's slaying and definitely going to win the nomination......

 

Fact is (and I do mean FACT, not blindly ignoring the actual polling and creating our own dream world statistics) Hilary is ahead in most states according to the polls, and those he is ahead in by and large have a low delegate count so the electoral maths doesn't really add up. 90% in Vermont is pretty miniscule in the grand scheme of things if she is 10% ahead in Texas, for example.