Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Campaign-wise, the Sanders campaign made grave mistakes this time by trying to compete with Hillary in Florida and North Carolina. His tactics were way better for March 1st when he focused on the 5 states in the north and largely ditched the 6 states in the south. He ended up winning 4 of the 5 and was close in Massachusetts.
It seems like his win in Michigan boosted his ego too much thinking that polls don't matter and he could be competitive in Florida and North Carolina.
If he simply poured way more resources in Illinois and Missouri, he could have easily carried both. Sure he clearly did narrow the margin in North Carolina, which is by far his best state in the South, but he couldn't get any moral victory. For Hillary it's all about delegates. For Sanders, moral and delegates are equally important.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,655 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine
I'm not a Clinton supporter. I placed my first-ever R vote for Kasich in my primary, sooooooo ...
Hope you feel better having got that all off your chest, though. Rather dramatic prose.
May I ask a couple questions.
1. In the the upper corner of your screen name it says that you are in Austin TX. Is this where you currently reside?
2. If I understand correctly. This was the first time that you voted for a Republican? Yes?
3. If I am correct and you reside in Austin Texas and this is the first time you've voted Republican. Why did you vote for Kasich? when did the math look good for Kasich in Texas? When did it look good for him to win the R nomination?
4. A continuation from question 3. What was your rationale for voting for Kasich? What does it accomplish?
You are the one who portray him as a useless Congressman who cant get anything done, but Vermonters laugh in your face at your ignorance...They've known him for 30 years...Who do we trust....difficult...lol
1. In the the upper corner of your screen name it says that you are in Austin TX. Is this where you currently reside?
2. If I understand correctly. This was the first time that you voted for a Republican? Yes?
3. If I am correct and you reside in Austin Texas and this is the first time you've voted Republican. Why did you vote for Kasich? when did the math look good for Kasich in Texas? When did it look good for him to win the R nomination?
4. A continuation from question 3. What was your rationale for voting for Kasich? What does it accomplish?
While I'm not the poster that you addressed, I am similar. I voted for Kasich in the Arkansas primary. My rationale for voting for Kasich was that among the candidates running, he was the candidate that came closest to matching my positions and personal political make-up.
That is what voters are supposed to do. While the math is interesting, and he was always a long shot to win the nomination, the point of elections is that voters get to tell those running for office, and those serving in office, who WE the voters are, what our priorities are, what direction WE want the country to take. If it's a game for you about picking the winner, rather than about you participating in the conversation, then that's certainly your right. But I think I'd rather be representing myself when I vote, expressing my political preferences, so that those who do get elected, and those who are already in office, know that there are some of us who think like this, out there.
I hear a lot of voters complaining that the people who get elected don't listen to them. Which I complain about too. But I wonder if voters are actually sending the message of what they want, if they are playing the odds about who to vote for, rather than engaging in the process of voting for who would best represent them.
I think that plenty of people like Hillary, but they're mostly older voters who don't flood social media with political love/hatefests. Until a couple generations ago, it was considered good manners to keep your political opinions to a minimum. People didn't engage in as much open discussion/banter/arguing as is considered the norm now. So there's an enormous contingent of voters in the U.S. who simply don't talk about it.
Well stated. I think the cheerleaders on all sides can learn from this. I enjoy posting my views/responding to others on city-data and they are just that, a view/opinion. But I get the feeling more than a few think their pointed statements will actually sway others to vote their way. I think this kind of belief is largely naive. It all begins/end at the voting booth/card and people will decide on their own who they will vote/not vote for, not based on some CD post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VM1138
Nobody is enthusiastic about Clinton. They just think she's destined to win and people back winners. Also, some may have bought into all the "scary Socialism" stuff people have been peddling.
But "enthusiastic" enough to vote for her and that's all that matters in this game.
Well stated. I think the cheerleaders on all sides can learn from this. I enjoy posting my views/responding to others on city-data and they are just that, a view/opinion. But I get the feeling more than a few think their pointed statements will actually sway others to vote their way. I think this kind of belief is largely naive. It all begins/end at the voting booth/card and people will decide on their own who they will vote/not vote for, not based on some CD post.
But "enthusiastic" enough to vote for her and that's all that matters in this game.
^
This. We're in a discussion forum people. You're not going to change my (or anybody else's) vote, and I'm not going to change yours. The person who wins the most votes wins...if its not your guy/gal, then it's just not...and if people don't like your guy, then they just don't. It doesn't make them any less intelligent or informed than you, and they are entitled to their opinion. Well unless they support Trump....
^
This. We're in a discussion forum people. You're not going to change my (or anybody else's) vote, and I'm not going to change yours. The person who wins the most votes wins...if its not your guy/gal, then it's just not...and if people don't like your guy, then they just don't. It doesn't make them any less intelligent or informed than you, and they are entitled to their opinion. Well unless they support Trump....
Some of those guys are kind of nutty.
I'm kidding! Not really though.
Well stated. I think the same thing happens in the religion dept. Ack!
And you have a good sense of humor. Though I'd add I believe bernie certainly has his share of nuts following him also.
You are the one who portray him as a useless Congressman who cant get anything done, but Vermonters laugh in your face at your ignorance...They've known him for 30 years...Who do we trust....difficult...lol
Lets be honest, most of the country doesn't even know where Vermont is and Berni supporters from Vermont sure as hell aren't going to change the mind of voters in more prominent states.
It's an interesting election. WaldoKitty thinks primaries are decided by crowd size and PCALMike thinks Vermont controls the nominee.
I guess the voters in the remaining states may as well just stay home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
