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.
That 17 number(18 officially) doesn't really fly because most dropped out.
Before Iowa, 6 candidates had dropped out.
After Iowa, but before New Hampshire, another 3 dropped out
After New Hampshire, but before South Carolina, another 3 dropped out.
South Carolina forward, there werre only 6 candidates still in the race
And lets be clear, not all of the 18 were even on every Ballot. The day after Super Tuesday, we officially had 4 candidates left.
so for 56 of 58 contest, Trump only had 4 opponents.
Reread the post I responded to, that person is trying to claim the superdelegates tipped the scale, but Clinton won in a land slide.
Trump's win is the one that actually has the finger on the scale to support it.
IM not attacking the Republican system, only arguing that in context, it is far worse than the democratic one based on the criteria the previous poster says he doesnt ;ole
4 opponents and going against the RNC is more obstacles than 2 in the Democrat primary with the DNC on her side......don't you think?
If Biden would have been in the primary making it 3 solid candidates, NO way Hillary passes 35%....and Bernie takes it.
Put the shoe on the other side.......if Hillary had to go against 4 solid Democrat Candidates or even 3 and she is outspent 3 to 1 by the others and the DNC is against her.....would she even get to 35% of the total votes? or even 40%......come on be honest, you know the answer to that.
the Democrat party has to get rid of the Super Delegates....you know it.
it doesn't work that way.....he ran in 1988 and 2008 on his own and he sucked at it.....he knew that to beat Hillary he needed money, once he knew he couldn't match Hillary, not even 1/3 of what she had he knew he couldn't beat her.
this b.s. that he didn't run because of his son is B.S.....if Hillary didn't run, Biden would be the Democrat establishment choice and all the donors would go to him. The establishment wasn't giving Bernie the Nomination. ...he knew if he ran, he couldn't beat Hillary but split the vote and give Bernie the nomination, another reason he didn't run.
My husband knows the family and I can assure you Biden was so devestated that he couln't put his all into running. His heart just wasn't into it. Sorry, no BS
My husband knows the family and I can assure you Biden was so devestated that he couln't put his all into running. His heart just wasn't into it. Sorry, no BS
if Hillary didn't run...say she would have been indicted for her emails or drop out because of her health....you don't think Biden jumps in? OF COURSE!!!!!
he has run before in 1988 and 2008 and he knows damn well you can't win without money.....if Hillary's donors would have jump ship to Biden and Hillary drops out, Biden would be all over it.....who are you kidding?
4 opponents and going against the RNC is more obstacles than 2 in the Democrat primary with the DNC on her side......don't you think?
You are still missing the point. Clinton won by a larger margin than Trump. the other poster was arguing that the superdelegates where the thing that tipped the scales and got Clinton to victory.
Im simply stating that they werent.
Your argument that Trump has more opponents doesnt actually help it case, it just shows the Republican party was more divided on who they supported than Democrats.
Quote:
If Biden would have been in the primary making it 3 solid candidates, NO way Hillary passes 35%....and Bernie takes it.
Im less optimistic than you, i dont think Clinton gets above 30 in a 3 way race with Biden and Sanders.
But that wouldnt give Bernie the nomination. I dont think he would have ever gotten enough votes to get to 2700 or what ever the number was. There just would have been a huge Convention fight.
Quote:
Put the shoe on the other side.......if Hillary had to go against 4 solid Democrat Candidates or even 3 and she is outspent 3 to 1 by the others and the DNC is against her.....would she even get to 35% of the total votes? or even 40%......come on be honest, you know the answer to that.
You are still missing the point.
and again, what you are describing as the DNC, are just democrats in general.
Quote:
the Democrat party has to get rid of the Super Delegates....you know it.
No one cared about the super delegates when Obama was getting them to beat Clinton. I honestly think it was Bernie being against them that caused the problem. I doubt it happens again.
What was plan B for the Democrat party establishment if Hillary would have dropped out either by health or her emails?.......Bernie wasn't going to be the candidate to the DNC.......the only legit Democrat establishment candidate to continue Obama's policies to replace Hillary was Joe Biden and he would have run. Obama would make sure he runs and campaigns for him 10 times harder than what he campaigned for Hillary which they never liked each other.
It was about money for Joe and not being a spoiler for Hillary.
You are still missing the point. Clinton won by a larger margin than Trump. the other poster was arguing that the superdelegates where the thing that tipped the scales and got Clinton to victory.Im simply stating that they werent.Your argument that Trump has more opponents doesnt actually help it case, it just shows the Republican party was more divided on who they supported than Democrats.
I'm saying Trump had MORE obstacles than Hillary to win his nomination......let me point them again:
1) Bigger pool of candidates
2) RNC against him
3) His opponents outspent him 3 to 1.
Hillary only had 1 strong candidate opponent that could compete with her in donations but she still had the money advantage over him and the DNC on her side tipping the scales.
You have to factor in those things when you compare apples to oranges.
This reminds me of a football debate we always have with my friends.....if Football team A plays in a weak conference or weak division and has more Touchdowns than team B who plays in a tougher division and has tougher road to the playoffs but scores less TD's that doesn't mean anything when Team A plays Team B in the playoffs.......usually the team that plays in a tougher division and overcomes tougher obstacles wins.
My point is your are taking stats from 2 different pools and trying to compare them as the same and you can't. Trump's path to the GOP nomination was way different than Hillary's.....Trump had more obstacles than Hillary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Im less optimistic than you, I don't think Clinton gets above 30 in a 3 way race with Biden and Sanders. But that wouldnt give Bernie the nomination. I dont think he would have ever gotten enough votes to get to 2700 or what ever the number was. There just would have been a huge Convention fight.
I agree with you on the 30% for Hillary, I was trying to be generous and spot her 10% for being a woman and waiting her turn like a good soldier.
But I disagree that Sanders loses with Biden in a 3 primary Race.....Sanders takes it because Biden and Hillary would split the establishment vote and the only way they have a civil war at the convention is if the DNC and the Super Delegates refuse to give it to Bernie and then the Democrats will have real problems for the general and beyond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
No one cared about the super delegates when Obama was getting them to beat Clinton. I honestly think it was Bernie being against them that caused the problem. I doubt it happens again.
actually, I always said in 2008 that Hillary Clinton got screwed and that the DNC should get rid of the Super Delegates......I'm not a Democrat, so that's up to your party to decide but if you ran a real democratic primaries you wouldn't need S.D. and it wouldn't be so obvious that the establishment is tipping the scales.......just my 2 cents.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 09-11-2017 at 01:32 AM..
I'm saying Trump had MORE obstacles than Hillary to win his nomination......let me point them again:
and Im saying that is irrelevant, because that means he couldnt consolidate support around himself. Actually, thats off topic.... give me a second to get bake on track.
More to the point, im arguing that her vote total is more factually tied to her level of support than Trumps delegate count is.
The process of choosing a nominee on the Democratic side much more resembles the actual vote than the Republican side does.
Let me try it this way.
Hillary won 56% of the vote, and got 57% of the delegates
Trump got 45% of the vote, and 70% of the delegates.
Again, sorry, i got off subject, my point was the nominating process and how the Republican one was far less fair than the democratic one.
Quote:
But I disagree that Sanders loses with Biden in a 3 primary Race.....Sanders takes it because Biden and Hillary would split the establishment vote and the only way they have a civil war at the convention is if the DNC and the Super Delegates refuse to give it to Bernie and then the Democrats will have real problems for the general and beyond.
This is one of those moments where I have to again point out that your lack of knowledge on the system is part of the problem. (im honestly not trying to be mean or condescending here)
The Democratic primaries are not winner take all like the Republicans, its proportional.
In a 3 way race with Bernie getting 40%( even the 45% that he got) of the vote, thats about how much he is going into the convention with, no more no less. He would not have secured the nomination.
Even if he got every Superdelegate vote(super delegates are not required to switch to and vote for who ever is in the lead), he would have still been short of the mark to become the nominee.
Im not sure if you were phrasing your comment that way for dramatic affect, but the nomination is not something you can just "give" to someone. The votes have to be counted and if he comes up short he just comes up short.
Also, lets be clear, you vote for delegates in the primary, not the candidates themselves . Your vote for a candidate is just showing your own preference. Also most states dont bind those delegates to vote a certain way.
Quote:
actually, I always said in 2008 that Hillary Clinton got screwed and that the DNC should get rid of the Super Delegates......I'm not a Democrat, so that's up to your party to decide but if you ran a real democratic primaries you wouldn't need S.D. and it wouldn't be so obvious that the establishment is tipping the scale.......just my 2 cents.
My problem with this opinion is that 95% of the superdelegates are currently elected party members or former elected party members, that means you are labeling everyone as the establishment(giving that term no meaning). the other 5% are people who run the party on a day to day basis. You may have never heard of them, but thats who they are.
Again, this is when I rip my hair out when talking about this subject. I feel that most of you believe the worst about the system and then latch on to things that just arent true.
And what you call tipping the scales is a political endorsement, How exactly is that tipping the scales in this context ???
and Im saying that is irrelevant, because that means he couldnt consolidate support around himself. Actually, thats off topic.... give me a second to get bake on track.
no, that makes him an outsider going against the establishment of his party and win which has NEVER been done in the GOP or the Democrat party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
More to the point, im arguing that her vote total is more factually tied to her level of support than Trumps delegate count is.
Hillary got 2,842 of the delegate count of a total of 4,051 delegates total.......Hillary's 2,842 delegate count is not 55% of her total votes.
Trump won 1,442 delegates out of 2,472 delegates total. Trump got 45% of the popular vote........both are off but the DNC method is more off.
no, that makes him an outsider going against the establishment of his party and win which has NEVER been done in the GOP or the Democrat party.
thats not really a response to my point
Quote:
Hillary got 2,842 of the delegate count of a total of 4,051 delegates total.......Hillary's 2,842 delegate count is not 55% of her total votes.
Trump won 1,442 delegates out of 2,472 delegates total. Trump got 45% of the popular vote........both are off but the DNC method is more off.
Truths moment
Im guessing we both did some quick googling and both got our numbers a little mixed
My trump numbers were post convention while my Hillary numbers were pre convention
You did the opposite, pre convention trump numbers, post convention Hillary numbers
also, there were 4,763 possible Democratic delegates
the 4,051 is only the pledged delegates.
the superdelegates do not become official until they vote at the convention
Pre convention
Trump 45% of the vote, 58%(1,442 out of 2,472 ) of the delegates = 13 point spread
Clinton 55% of the vote, 55%( 2,205 out of 4,051) of the delegates = no spread
,
Post convention
Trump 45% of the vote, 70%( 1,725 out of 2,472) = 25 point spread
Clinton 55% of the vote, 58% (2,842 out of 4,763) = 3 point spread.
No matter how you look at it, The Republican method is worse at Representation . So again, not sure how you came to your conclusion.
Trump 45% of the vote, 58%(1,442 out of 2,472 ) of the delegates = 13 point spread
Clinton 55% of the vote, 55%( 2,205 out of 4,051) of the delegates = no spread
,
Post convention
Trump 45% of the vote, 70%( 1,725 out of 2,472) = 25 point spread
Clinton 55% of the vote, 58% (2,842 out of 4,763) = 3 point spread.
No matter how you look at it, The Republican method is worse at Representation . So again, not sure how you came to your conclusion.
You are looking at it in the wrong way. If we go by just pledged delegates you are correct but Hillary Clinton didn't win the nomination with just pledged delegates, she was short. She needed Super Delegates and they are not bound to the popular vote or the will of the people.
out of a total of 616 Super Delegates, Hillary got 571 which is 93% of the Super Delegates........Hillary got 55% of the popular vote in her party but she got 93% of the Super Delegates vote to push her over the edge? that's a 38 point swing against Sanders.
how is that a better representation of the American people?
both systems are flawed.....the GOP has a lot of winner takes all primary to give an advantage to the front runner which is usually the establishment candidate and to not drag out the primary process too long and to avoid a brokered convention.....and the Democrat party has the Super Delegates to make sure the establishment candidate crosses the finish line and avoid a brokered convention.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 09-11-2017 at 03:44 AM..
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.
