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.
Yes, it is. He was leading Hillary 8 months ago in the state by big margins. Yet, you blatantly and shamelessly claimed that Sanders won the state only because of Trump voters trolling the Dem primary and more than insinuated that Hillary was the rightful winner. This is pathetic.
I was the one who first posted that information and I have no idea what you're talking about, since I don't see where anyone "claimed that Sanders won the state only because of Trump voters."
Are you just being stubborn? What the exit polls showed is that, although they are registered Democrats and voted for Sanders in the primary, they would choose Trump in November. I don't know how else to explain this to you. You're acting as if someone insulted your mother when this is supposed to be a discussion about the candidates. I don't like or dislike Bernie more than Hillary. However, I do support Hillary because I feel she is the better candidate. For some reason, Bernie supporters take everything and anything that doesn't enthusiastically support him as a personal attack.
He won Nebraska! End of discussion. You are constantly trying to delegitimize every single win and all his supporters with your absurd and disagreeable agenda.
Hillary needs as many Bernie voters as she can possibly get if she is the nominee. There are no closed elections in the general! She is a doing terribly among independents, the white working class and people under 40, and you are doing everything you can to make sure she loses.
Gosh Bernie supporters really hate democracy
Yes he won the Nebraska delegate race
But the people of Nebraska supported hillary more
Hillary won the people's votes in Nebraska as there were 2.4 times the voters in primary than caucuses
I was the one who first posted that information and I have no idea what you're talking about, since I don't see where anyone "claimed that Sanders won the state only because of Trump voters."
Are you just being stubborn? What the exit polls showed is that, although they are registered Democrats and voted for Sanders in the primary, they would choose Trump in November. I don't know how else to explain this to you. You're acting as if someone insulted your mother when this is supposed to be a discussion about the candidates. I don't like or dislike Bernie more than Hillary. However, I do support Hillary because I feel she is the better candidate. For some reason, Bernie supporters take everything and anything that doesn't enthusiastically support him as a personal attack.
Minor clarification, a lot of the Sanders voters in the WV primary will vote Trump over Sanders in the GE
I was the one who first posted that information and I have no idea what you're talking about, since I don't see where anyone "claimed that Sanders won the state only because of Trump voters."
Errr...I am not talking about you and no, you were not the first one who posted that information to delegitimize his support and his wins. Its old news by now and people have discussed this in other threads. Sanders is beating Hillary in Trump matchups in virtually every poll out there for every state, and it would surprise me greatly if that was any different in West Virginia, no matter how much you like to think that Hillary would be so much stronger against Trump in West Virginia.
Gosh Bernie supporters really hate democracy
Yes he won the Nebraska delegate race
But the people of Nebraska supported hillary more
Hillary won the people's votes in Nebraska as there were 2.4 times the voters in primary than caucuses
What nonsense this is. Why should people show up for a meaningless primary? And independents werent even allowed to vote in the primary in Nebraska unlike the caucus. But I am sure you will try to delegitimize those supporters as well.
Actually, it's quantity vs quantity in that case. LOL
Maybe it's mass vs quantity or some other term I missed in my college physics class (at which I obviously did not excel!)
Wyoming ...584k
Vermont.....626k
Alaska......736k
New Hampshire ... 1.3m
Maine...1.3m
Hawaii...1.4m
Idaho...1.6m
West VA...1.8
So far I've listed 8 states that total less than 8 million
Texas....26.9m
Pennsylvania.....12.79m
New York.....19.7m
Florida.....19.8m
Illinois....12.8m
Ohio...11.6m
They still don't get it.
Which shows some of the massive problems with American democracy. Big states have very expensive TV markets, so running ads are very expensive. The person who grovels the rich and the powerful (for kickbacks of course) and already has a massive national profile and name recognition has huge advantages. In other states where a candidate can introduce him or herself to the voters so they get to know the candidate, the democracy works better.
Which shows some of the massive problems with American democracy. Big states have very expensive TV markets, so running ads are very expensive. The person who grovels the rich and the powerful (for kickbacks of course) and already has a massive national profile and name recognition has huge advantages. In other states where a candidate can introduce him or herself to the voters so they get to know the candidate, the democracy works better.
So what about Michigan? Of course Clinton had more name recognition at the start of the race. In fact, I think it hurt more than helped, since there were plenty of "anyone but Hillary" voters even before she announced her candidacy.
I don't know what you're trying to assert here. Are you saying that the system is corrupt because someone who was a virtually unknown Senator from a small state didn't have the same name recognition as a former First Lady and Secretary of State?
So what about Michigan? Of course Clinton had more name recognition at the start of the race. In fact, I think it hurt more than helped, since there were plenty of "anyone but Hillary" voters even before she announced her candidacy.
I don't know what you're trying to assert here. Are you saying that the system is corrupt because someone who was a virtually unknown Senator from a small state didn't have the same name recognition as a former First Lady and Secretary of State?
The system is corrupt when there is no public financing and other measures to level the playing field as the system is meant to prevent anyone who isnt supported by the big money special interests and billionaire class from competing. There are lots of studies done about this and it shows clearly how corrupt the system truly is:
Yet, with all that, Hillary still can't win without the unelected Super Delegates. It really kills your entire argument.
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.
