telsor
Hall of Famer
I believe the phrase is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
Yeah, he'd get his revenge on the DNC, but the result would be (in what I assume would be his view) even worse.
2016 US Presidential Election - Trump vs Clinton? - Part 1
- Thread starter Dont be a lemon
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I believe the phrase is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
Yeah, he'd get his revenge on the DNC, but the result would be (in what I assume would be his view) even worse.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I don't disagree.
But if you were Sanders, at the end of the day, would you prefer Clinton or Trump?
- Jan 15, 2012
- 48,667
- 49,469
- AFL Club
- Richmond
after those emails, neither lol
Two days ago I would've said Clinton.
The main issue here is Bernie's voters. They're typically "engaged" and won't ignore this.
I see this as a big turning point in the lead up to November actually. I'd had Trump as 10% chance. Not so sure now.
telsor
Hall of Famer
See my post #7547 where I said essentially the same.
The Clinton campaign will push hard on Trump being evil incarnate in no small part in an attempt to scare Bernie's supporters into voting for her.
Trump will do likewise to get the tea party types to vote for him, although I suspect it'll be more from Clinton because the left is more erm ... familiar ... with demonising your opponent and making it personal.
Meh, it will be forgotten relatively quickly. Sanders will side with Hillary, and both will disavow the emails. Someone from the DNC will get fired and life will go on.
There is also already are far greater chance than 10% of trump winning. Fivethirtyeight has him at around 40%.
There is also already are far greater chance than 10% of trump winning. Fivethirtyeight has him at around 40%.
So much bullshit. The right are the reason why we have the term rat*******. They are the experts at it.
Sanders has already endorsed Clinton, despite not suspending his campaign. He's not going to renege on that, because he didn't do what Ted Cruz did, which was "think about it" and then confirm that he wasn't going to endorse Trump at all. Him endorsing Clinton has pissed off quite a lot of his supporters but reality is that he hates Trump and has explicitly stated that he'll do all he can to prevent Trump from getting into office. Given the significant alt-right support for Trump and getting praise from the likes of David Duke and right to far-right nationalist parties overseas, these Sanders supporters would look really stupid to join the Trump train because of the "rigged system." Of course it's a crooked system over there: the election is determined by Electoral College votes, not the popular vote, the Democrats have a proportional delegate system but they have superdelegates (which Sanders was never going to win over) while the Republicans have proportional voting in some states, winner-take-all in others and variations in how delegates are obtained not just through percentage of popular vote but by congressional districts won. It really is a dog's breakfast of a system.
He knew what he was getting himself into when he joined the Democrats last year. The parties always prefer those are the most loyal to them and that was shown on the GOP side with establishment figures ganging up on Trump as quickly as possible. Not only that but the "Never Trump" movement went all the way to the convention although their plan of freeing the delegates backfired spectacularly and by that time, quite a lot of GOP heavyweights firmly supported Trump or at least were there due to mutual hatred of Clinton. Some delegates walked out of the convention and of course, Cruz got booed by those loyal to Trump and he was quite happy to see that happen. There's probably going to be a bit of a ruckus from some die-hard Sanders supporters but they knew it would be almost impossible for Sanders to win the nomination, it was "rigged" from the start due to superdelegates (who will Democrat elite chose: a former First Lady, a former Senator and former Secretary of State or someone who's been a Democrat for 15 minutes?) and name recognition (how many knew of Sanders except for those live in Vermont or politically minded?) but at the end of the day he lost the popular vote by almost 4 million votes, he won 11 fewer states/territories, lost by over 300 pledged delegates (proportional voting) and over 500 superdelegates.
Even if the superdelegates decided to suddenly change their support and vote for Sanders and Sanders gets the nomination, he's going to get buried alive in the general election. He may have had the most favourable polls (but so did Kasich and look what happened to him LOL), but given his progressive views (liberal/progressive make up a quarter of the voting population at best) and that he's called himself a socialist, the GOP will destroy him. All they need to do is call him a communist or communist sympathiser (which Trump actually did a couple of times) and he's lost the election before really getting started.
SexyBlueGirl
Premiership Player
Don't disagree with you but there's not much (in terms of sentiment) in these emails that the "engaged" Sanders supporters did not already know. For me, nothings changed since I already knew the DNC were in the Hillary tank.
There's more emails to come though so the bleeding will continue and if timed correctly could prove decisive.
Trump at 10% chance is/was way too low. There's not much separating them in the polls.
Where did the 10% come from - 538 has him at 42.3% chance of winning currently - even at his lowest he was 19.7%.
SexyBlueGirl
Premiership Player
Given the factors working against Sanders:
DNC alliance
MSM alliance
Democratic establishment alliance
Wall Street/big business alliance
Psychological effects of super delegate rigged poll
Sanders starting out at ~5%
It's amazing he got to finish at around 45-55.
I'd call remarkably that close given those factors and show just how incredibly weak a candidate Hitlery Clinton is.
SexyBlueGirl
Premiership Player
Don't ask me, ask PJ.
I'd agree with all of that - just two points.
1. The DNC, establishment and super delegate set up isn't "corrupt" as has been claimed. It's their party and they can choose who they want. It has the appearance of a democratic process, but it's a private organisation (this goes for both parties) that will seek the candidate they think is most likely to win.
2. Expect the Republican Party to bring is something akin to the super delegate system after November.
SexyBlueGirl
Premiership Player
I never said it was corrupt. I use the word rigged because the SD count was added to the pledged count (in many polls) when the super delegates had not even voted yet... they vote at the convention.
The SD count was gleaned by the MSM by simply making phone calls to the super delegates themselves or their operatives. Hardly an official count when those delegates can change their mind at any time.
That's a rigged system.
Sure, but rigged implies it's somehow morally suspect. It's no more rigged than an AFL team choosing one player over another in the draft.
I'm not sure what's incorrect: Sanders going to renege the Clinton endorsement? (DNC leaks refer to when the primaries were still going, he's endorsed her and he ain't backing out, his political career is almost over and won't even last a 2nd term due to his age most likely). Alt-right and far-right support for Trump? (4chan, Wilders, Le Pen, Duke, Stormfront, etc.). Voting methods? (I've followed the primaries quite a bit and checked to see how delegates are allocated from reputable websites, it really is a strange system) RNC? (Never Trump movement talked big but failed, they didn't have enough members on the rules committee to unbind delegates to potentially oust trump, Cruz withdrew from the race and never endorsed Trump and got booed for not giving in when he was expected to.) The Democrat primary results? (Clinton won in terms of popular votes, states/territories, pledged delegates and superdelegates) DNC favouritism for Clinton? Sanders being part of the progressive wing of the Democrat party? (Clinton is moderate, Obama is moderate, Democrats as a whole have moved to the centre since the 1970s) Potential lack of broad support for Sanders? (Sanders struggled to gain the black and Hispanic vote from Clinton in a lot of the big states) Socialist? (He calls himself that and there's nothing wrong with that, Americans can be quite crazy, Sanders didn't attack Clinton hard enough, he didn't stoop to the levels Trump did when berating the likes of Bush, Romney, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Trump will go low on Sanders like he has on Clinton).
I would prefer a Sanders as president but I knew it was never going to happen. Too many things had to align, Clinton would had to have been imprisoned or killed for anyone but her to be nominated.
Sanders will be vocal in his supporters not going over to Trump anyway, he said as much when he was live tweeting Trump's rant/speech
They just need to get Sanders on the convention and say some flowery words and it'd be alright
They just need to get Sanders on the convention and say some flowery words and it'd be alright
Hopefully he extracts a decent deal for doing so
SexyBlueGirl
Premiership Player
Counting votes before they have been cast is definitely morally suspect. Even the DNC came out against the MSM doing this so it's not even debatable.
Ratts of Tobruk
Cancelled
- May 1, 2013
- 9,168
- 5,975
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- ATV Irdning
What was in the emails that was damaging? Sanders had already mentioned that the DNC were talking him down in private (unsurprising since he only became a Democrat to run for President). Did I miss something?
A bigger story to me was the revelation that Trump had basically offered Kasich, a relative moderate, the power of foreign and domestic policy if he agreed to be VP.
A bigger story to me was the revelation that Trump had basically offered Kasich, a relative moderate, the power of foreign and domestic policy if he agreed to be VP.
Given GWBogan's post has a ream of likes, I'd suggest you try and explain yourself rather than being so vague.
- Jan 15, 2012
- 48,667
- 49,469
- AFL Club
- Richmond
So according to Michael Moore, Trump will win.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html
- 3. The Hillary Problem. Can we speak honestly, just among ourselves? And before we do, let me state, I actually like Hillary - a lot - and I think she has been given a bad rap she doesn’t deserve. But her vote for the Iraq War made me promise her that I would never vote for her again. To date, I haven’t broken that promise. For the sake of preventing a proto-fascist from becoming our commander-in-chief, I’m breaking that promise. I sadly believe Clinton will find a way to get us in some kind of military action. She’s a hawk, to the right of Obama. But Trump’s psycho finger will be on The Button, and that is that. Done and done.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html
Lol he's voting for Hillary, I think he said the same thing about Romney in 2012.
- Status
Similar threads
