Democratic convention

[gr8indoorsman]

It's interesting that what was feared by Republicans just a few weeks ago may (may) come to fruition at the Democratic convention. Specifically, if Sanders wins California next week he will have closed the gap enough that a superdelegates may have to consider their votes and things could get contentious. Perhaps a rule change proposal by the Sanders camp to force superdelegates to vote for the person who won their state would swing the vote enough to bump Sanders up.

Or now there's talk of a white night (Joe Biden) coming in and rescuing the party.

It's pretty amazing what Sanders has done. I shudder at the thought of his nomination (no, I would not vote for him). While I think it's still unlikely he ends up the eventual winner of the Democratic primary, I think it's interesting how things have changed where today the Republican party looks relatively stable heading towards the convention and the Democrats are the ones sweating a little bit. Interesting year.

 

[qazplm]

It's interesting that what was feared by Republicans just a few weeks ago may (may) come to fruition at the Democratic convention. Specifically, if Sanders wins California next week he will have closed the gap enough that a superdelegates may have to consider their votes and things could get contentious. Perhaps a rule change proposal by the Sanders camp to force superdelegates to vote for the person who won their state would swing the vote enough to bump Sanders up.

Or now there's talk of a white night (Joe Biden) coming in and rescuing the party.

It's pretty amazing what Sanders has done. I shudder at the thought of his nomination (no, I would not vote for him). While I think it's still unlikely he ends up the eventual winner of the Democratic primary, I think it's interesting how things have changed where today the Republican party looks relatively stable heading towards the convention and the Democrats are the ones sweating a little bit. Interesting year.

Nope, not gonna happen. SD's are locked in. It's going to be Hillary. If they weren't scared away from sticking with the Black possibly Muslim guy with the funny name and Jeremiah Wright et al who had a much closer race with Hillary, why would they be scared away from sticking with Hillary?

At this point in 08 IIRC, Obama was down a few points in most polls to McCain. McCain had better numbers overall in key areas. 40% of Hillary voters were saying they weren't going to vote for him in polls. At this point now, way fewer Sanders voters are saying that, Hillary is up in almost every poll (even if only by a few points), and she leads Sanders by a heck of a lot more in votes and delegates. He won't have closed the gap at all. A small win still means a rough split in pledged delegates and NJ which votes on the same day will give Hillary more. So, once again, even if he wins by a point or two, the overall pledged delegate lead will actually increase for Hillary thanks to NJ (and a week later DC which will go heavily for Hillary).

And no, even if you allocated SD's by state, Hillary still wins, and rather comfortably (although it's closer). Someone has already done that math. If you made all the primaries open, Hillary still wins. If you made them all closed, she still wins. The only change that would have led to Sanders winning is to switch to all caucuses.

Now, could Sanders still play not nice at the convention, make things look messy, and cause problems for Hillary? Absolutely he could. Will he? I doubt it, but it's possible.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think if he wins California and the delegate count is within 200 or so, he's going to ask for a Superdelegate rule change, and when that's denied, that opens a whole bunch of doors for Republicans to talk about a "fixed" primary where the popular candidate didn't get a fair shake.

Now, Bernie isn't going to win the popular vote, but he's definitely got momentum, and there will be quite a number of Democrats and Bernie supports who will feel he didn't get a fair shake. If I'm Trump, I try to take advantage and keep some of those supporters home, if not trying to swing them.

I'm on "your side" in this election, but I think you're still sticking to your guns about Hillary's inevitability as the Democratic candidate a little too much in the face of some serious uncertainty. Add to that the fact that in some of the latest polls, Bernie actually polls better against Trump than Hillary does, and I think there's going to be some second guessing later this month. Not total anarchy, but definitely more than was expected.

It is not going to be smooth sailing for Hillary at the convention, I don't think.

 

[qazplm]

I think if he wins California and the delegate count is within 200 or so, he's going to ask for a Superdelegate rule change, and when that's denied, that opens a whole bunch of doors for Republicans to talk about a "fixed" primary where the popular candidate didn't get a fair shake.

Now, Bernie isn't going to win the popular vote, but he's definitely got momentum, and there will be quite a number of Democrats and Bernie supports who will feel he didn't get a fair shake. If I'm Trump, I try to take advantage and keep some of those supporters home, if not trying to swing them.

I'm on "your side" in this election, but I think you're still sticking to your guns about Hillary's inevitability as the Democratic candidate a little too much in the face of some serious uncertainty. Add to that the fact that in some of the latest polls, Bernie actually polls better against Trump than Hillary does, and I think there's going to be some second guessing later this month. Not total anarchy, but definitely more than was expected.

It is not going to be smooth sailing for Hillary at the convention, I don't think.

I think he may ask for all sorts of concessions regardless of how California turns out. But I also think that Hillary will make sure that the more trouble he causes, the less prime time (if any) visibility he gets. I'm not saying that's great. If he decides to go sore loserville, that's obviously a negative for Clinton and the Democratic Party.

And there's no way he gets to 200. It's not mathematically possible. If we just count pledged delegates, she's up 270 right now.

Jun 4th

VI: 1 delegate difference either way, let's say she loses even though she's been winning these, she's at 269.

Jun 5th

Puerto Rico: She's up in the polls, let's say of the 60 she takes it 33-27, so now she's at 275.

Jun 7th:

Montana, ND, SD: She loses big time in all three. 59 total votes. But proportional voting means even big losses don't mean a big delegate gap, but let's give Bernie a 40-19 split here. Way too much I think, but let's be conservative. She's up 254.

NM: She probably wins this one like NV. Out of the 34 votes, she probably nets say 2 delegates. So now she's up 256.

NJ: 126 Delegates. She's up 12-15% in the polls. Let's assume a decent sized double digit win. So let's say she gets a 70-56 delegate gap, so add 14, and now she's at 270 (which is right where she started).

Cali: Polling shows her up 1-2% points, but early voting totals favor her (as they have all cycle). But let's assume either a tie, a 2% pt Bernie win or a 2% pt Hillary win...because all three effectively split the delegates. So let's be conservative and say she loses 20 delegates, and now she's at 250.

Jun 14: DC Heavy AA. She's going to blow this one out. 20 pledged delegates, so she's going to make back a big chunk of the 20 or so she lost in Cali worst case.

So, I think I've laid out a pretty fair/strong scenario for Bernie. He loses NJ, DC, NM, and Puerto Rico (which are all highly likely)...ties in VI, wins Cali, and wins by a land slide in the rest of the states.

and he ends up more or less right where he is now, with her up around 270ish delegates. To get to around 200...he would have to pretty much win every remaining state and territory, including DC and NJ.

Bernie "polls better" because no one is wasting time attacking him. The SDs are all seasoned pols...they know that. They know all of the crazy stuff he's said over the years, the completely unrealistic proposals he has would be fertile game for the right.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I think if he wins California and the delegate count is within 200 or so, he's going to ask for a Superdelegate rule change, and when that's denied, that opens a whole bunch of doors for Republicans to talk about a "fixed" primary where the popular candidate didn't get a fair shake.

Now, Bernie isn't going to win the popular vote, but he's definitely got momentum, and there will be quite a number of Democrats and Bernie supports who will feel he didn't get a fair shake. If I'm Trump, I try to take advantage and keep some of those supporters home, if not trying to swing them.

I'm on "your side" in this election, but I think you're still sticking to your guns about Hillary's inevitability as the Democratic candidate a little too much in the face of some serious uncertainty. Add to that the fact that in some of the latest polls, Bernie actually polls better against Trump than Hillary does, and I think there's going to be some second guessing later this month. Not total anarchy, but definitely more than was expected.

It is not going to be smooth sailing for Hillary at the convention, I don't think.

There is genuine contempt for Sanders in the Clinton camp right now. HRC at this point in 2008 was already figuring out how she could work in Obama's administration (they did ultimately cut a deal). She played nice because it was politically expedient for her and the Democrats in 2008.

Sanders will have no such position in a presumptive Clinton administration - he's 74 yo and this is his last foray at the Presidency. He won his last Senate election in 2012, so he could easily hang 'em up in 2018 for good, when he's 76.

Sanders doesn't seem like the kind of guy to play nice. He will keep making his points, even if he knows he has no chance to win. By now, you'd think he'd have quit the charade he's playing. Even worse for Clinton, he's rousing up his far-left base, often against HRC.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I think he may ask for all sorts of concessions regardless of how California turns out. But I also think that Hillary will make sure that the more trouble he causes, the less prime time (if any) visibility he gets. I'm not saying that's great. If he decides to go sore loserville, that's obviously a negative for Clinton and the Democratic Party.

And there's no way he gets to 200. It's not mathematically possible. If we just count pledged delegates, she's up 270 right now.

Jun 4th

VI: 1 delegate difference either way, let's say she loses even though she's been winning these, she's at 269.

Jun 5th

Puerto Rico: She's up in the polls, let's say of the 60 she takes it 33-27, so now she's at 275.

Jun 7th:

Montana, ND, SD: She loses big time in all three. 59 total votes. But proportional voting means even big losses don't mean a big delegate gap, but let's give Bernie a 40-19 split here. Way too much I think, but let's be conservative. She's up 254.

NM: She probably wins this one like NV. Out of the 34 votes, she probably nets say 2 delegates. So now she's up 256.

NJ: 126 Delegates. She's up 12-15% in the polls. Let's assume a decent sized double digit win. So let's say she gets a 70-56 delegate gap, so add 14, and now she's at 270 (which is right where she started).

Cali: Polling shows her up 1-2% points, but early voting totals favor her (as they have all cycle). But let's assume either a tie, a 2% pt Bernie win or a 2% pt Hillary win...because all three effectively split the delegates. So let's be conservative and say she loses 20 delegates, and now she's at 250.

Jun 14: DC Heavy AA. She's going to blow this one out. 20 pledged delegates, so she's going to make back a big chunk of the 20 or so she lost in Cali worst case.

So, I think I've laid out a pretty fair/strong scenario for Bernie. He loses NJ, DC, NM, and Puerto Rico (which are all highly likely)...ties in VI, wins Cali, and wins by a land slide in the rest of the states.

and he ends up more or less right where he is now, with her up around 270ish delegates. To get to around 200...he would have to pretty much win every remaining state and territory, including DC and NJ.

Bernie "polls better" because no one is wasting time attacking him. The SDs are all seasoned pols...they know that. They know all of the crazy stuff he's said over the years, the completely unrealistic proposals he has would be fertile game for the right.

qaz, I think you nailed this about Bernie. He will ask for all kinds of concessions, many of which she will be loathe to accommodate. She wants to tack back to center not further left. I also think it's quite possible that HRC and the DNC will try to limit his primetime visibility, and some of his hardcore supporters will go ape$hit over it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Fair analysis by both. As I've said before, Sanders strikes me as less revolutionary inspirational leader and more angry old man right now, but I am also not in his wheelhouse demographic.

For the record, if anything wacky happens and he is somehow the Democratic nom, I'm voting for Kodos. Or Trump. But probably Kodos.

 

[lbodel]

It's interesting that what was feared by Republicans just a few weeks ago may (may) come to fruition at the Democratic convention. Specifically, if Sanders wins California next week he will have closed the gap enough that a superdelegates may have to consider their votes and things could get contentious. Perhaps a rule change proposal by the Sanders camp to force superdelegates to vote for the person who won their state would swing the vote enough to bump Sanders up.

Or now there's talk of a white night (Joe Biden) coming in and rescuing the party.

It's pretty amazing what Sanders has done. I shudder at the thought of his nomination (no, I would not vote for him). While I think it's still unlikely he ends up the eventual winner of the Democratic primary, I think it's interesting how things have changed where today the Republican party looks relatively stable heading towards the convention and the Democrats are the ones sweating a little bit. Interesting year.

Just to give perspective, the Obama/Clinton race was significantly closer than this one. And Clinton also won a majority of the last string of states.

Sanders would have to win 67% of the remaining vote to draw even on PLEDGED delegates - not even including Superdelegates. This notion that they will vote to change the rules is nothing more than hot air by some Sanders people. And even so - Clinton is winning in every category - pledged delegates, superdelegates and has had 3 million more people vote for her. Where on earth is there a legit challenge?

The only "scary" thing for Democrats is that in 2008, Clinton had some ups and downs with Obama (definitely much testier than this race has been), but in the end she put her party first. Obviously Sanders has caucused with the Democrats, but he hasn't shown at least up to this point that he's going to be a team player.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The only "scary" thing for Democrats is that in 2008, Clinton had some ups and downs with Obama (definitely much testier than this race has been), but in the end she put her party first. Obviously Sanders has caucused with the Democrats, but he hasn't shown at least up to this point that he's going to be a team player.

This is the point I was driving at. While I appreciate that past races have been close on both sides, generally you have candidates that are "in line" with the party. In both parties this year, you've got a top candidate who isn't "in line", in Trump's case actually bashing the party as "rigged" even though he was winning and close to wrapping up the nomination at the time.

We've not really seen that from Sanders yet, but given his past and his general temperament, I wonder if we will. FWIW, I agree there's not much of a leg for him to stand on.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Don't call it the democratic convention. It is the hate america convention. It is a bunch of vandals. The party of vandalism against America. A witch guilty of treason with a billion dollars paid to her by foreign enemies bribing her for American weaponry that will be used to slaughter US troops. A filthy party filled with fat cucks. It is a cuck job party. A gaggle of fat ugly bald people that are losers in the real world. The party of losers and ugly people.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Don't call it the democratic convention. It is the hate america convention. It is a bunch of vandals. The party of vandalism against America. A witch guilty of treason with a billion dollars paid to her by foreign enemies bribing her for American weaponry that will be used to slaughter US troops. A filthy party filled with fat cucks. It is a cuck job party. A gaggle of fat ugly bald people that are losers in the real world. The party of losers and ugly people.

actually it's 2B.

 

[qazplm]

This is the point I was driving at. While I appreciate that past races have been close on both sides, generally you have candidates that are "in line" with the party. In both parties this year, you've got a top candidate who isn't "in line", in Trump's case actually bashing the party as "rigged" even though he was winning and close to wrapping up the nomination at the time.

We've not really seen that from Sanders yet, but given his past and his general temperament, I wonder if we will. FWIW, I agree there's not much of a leg for him to stand on.

I dont disagree that he's not really part of the party and is just using it, but at the same time, if he doesn't show at least some level of fidelity (by ultimately endorsing her and campaigning at least somewhat for her) then he's going to find his position in the Senate a lonely one pretty quickly. I think he's smart enough to know that, so hope that means he'll eventually get over it in time to be an asset...but am I 100% certain of that, nope.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I dont disagree that he's not really part of the party and is just using it, but at the same time, if he doesn't show at least some level of fidelity (by ultimately endorsing her and campaigning at least somewhat for her) then he's going to find his position in the Senate a lonely one pretty quickly. I think he's smart enough to know that, so hope that means he'll eventually get over it in time to be an asset...but am I 100% certain of that, nope.

I'm not sure he cares. He can win his seat whenever he wants, and he's dirt old anyway so I doubt he's focused on the future in the Senate.

It'd make more sense for someone like Rubio to be concerned about that.

 

[qazplm]

I'm not sure he cares. He can win his seat whenever he wants, and he's dirt old anyway so I doubt he's focused on the future in the Senate.

It'd make more sense for someone like Rubio to be concerned about that.

I think he's gotten a taste of power and he likes it, and he's eventually not going to give all that away. If he plays it smart, he pushes his issues AND retains power. If not, he loses it except in the ability to have some fans tweet nicely to him.

 

[lbodel]

I'm not sure he cares. He can win his seat whenever he wants, and he's dirt old anyway so I doubt he's focused on the future in the Senate.

It'd make more sense for someone like Rubio to be concerned about that.

I'd agree with that - but doesn't mean there won't be pressure. I mean even Howard Dean is saying he's "out there" right now.

But, like I said, in 2008 - that campaign was a lot more hostile and bitter. I think Clinton has done a really good job of going above the fray and not getting into it and she knows what it's like. As I mentioned, the primary in 2008 was significantly closer and went into June with Clinton winning many of the last leg of contests. And you have to keep in mind, when you get close and get to the point of being viable and that you can win - it's gonna take a while to really come to grips that ok, you lost. If I was Bernie, I'd want to be competing as best I can too - especially if I have money to do so. But there has been some questionable things going on lately (not necessarily directed by him) and it's obviously close to that reckoning. Obviously if he loses California, along with NJ an such - I think you'll see things change very quickly.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Of course secretly I'm hoping Sanders somehow sneaks the nomination so I can keep my string of voting R in presidential elections alive. That said, I'm 2 for 5 and those two were W. Frowny face.

 

[qazplm]

I'd agree with that - but doesn't mean there won't be pressure. I mean even Howard Dean is saying he's "out there" right now.

But, like I said, in 2008 - that campaign was a lot more hostile and bitter. I think Clinton has done a really good job of going above the fray and not getting into it and she knows what it's like. As I mentioned, the primary in 2008 was significantly closer and went into June with Clinton winning many of the last leg of contests. And you have to keep in mind, when you get close and get to the point of being viable and that you can win - it's gonna take a while to really come to grips that ok, you lost. If I was Bernie, I'd want to be competing as best I can too - especially if I have money to do so. But there has been some questionable things going on lately (not necessarily directed by him) and it's obviously close to that reckoning. Obviously if he loses California, along with NJ an such - I think you'll see things change very quickly.

I hope you are right, but I'm not 100 percent sure we will see things change quickly in that scenario either. I'm maybe at 75%.

 

[lbodel]

I hope you are right, but I'm not 100 percent sure we will see things change quickly in that scenario either. I'm maybe at 75%.

It will. The extreme Sanders supporters do not represent the majority. Now, it certainly doesn't make everyone enthusiastic about Clinton, even Clinton supporters now. She has work to do to boost that in general.

That being said, Trump continues to put his foot in his mouth. He's gone from bashing an Indiana born judge as a Mexican who can't rule on a case because he wants to build a wall to now saying "Look at my African American over there" at a rally.

Good luck winning an election completely alienating Hispanics and African-Americans. Good luck.

 

[qazplm]

It will. The extreme Sanders supporters do not represent the majority. Now, it certainly doesn't make everyone enthusiastic about Clinton, even Clinton supporters now. She has work to do to boost that in general.

That being said, Trump continues to put his foot in his mouth. He's gone from bashing an Indiana born judge as a Mexican who can't rule on a case because he wants to build a wall to now saying "Look at my African American over there" at a rally.

Good luck winning an election completely alienating Hispanics and African-Americans. Good luck.

Well. the emphasis is on the word quickly for me. Yes, we will eventually get there, and yes, Trump can't stop being Trump so it some ways it won't matter even if it isn't quickly, but I can easily see Sanders causing a ruckus at the convention and being lukewarm at best in his endorsement...but I also think most Sanders' supporters will hold their nose and vote for Hillary at the end of the day given the alternative.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Well. the emphasis is on the word quickly for me. Yes, we will eventually get there, and yes, Trump can't stop being Trump so it some ways it won't matter even if it isn't quickly, but I can easily see Sanders causing a ruckus at the convention and being lukewarm at best in his endorsement...but I also think most Sanders' supporters will hold their nose and vote for Hillary at the end of the day given the alternative.

Or just to be different they might vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

 

[qazplm]

Or just to be different they might vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

that's your hope, but that's not what's going to happen in any appreciable numbers.

 

[SDBoiler1]

that's your hope, but that's not what's going to happen in any appreciable numbers.

You seem to underestimate the amount of disgust and vitriol the young Sanders voters seem to have for HRC and the Clintocracy. (They certainly don't love Trump either.) You might be right in that these people don't vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, but I suspect many, many more end up sitting out the election altogether.

 

[qazplm]

You seem to underestimate the amount of disgust and vitriol the young Sanders voters seem to have for HRC and the Clintocracy. (They certainly don't love Trump either.) You might be right in that these people don't vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, but I suspect many, many more end up sitting out the election altogether.

You'd suspect wrong. It's going to be a tough election season for you. I'd start girding your loins now if I were you, but I understand holding onto to hope til the last second.

 

[lbodel]

You seem to underestimate the amount of disgust and vitriol the young Sanders voters seem to have for HRC and the Clintocracy. (They certainly don't love Trump either.) You might be right in that these people don't vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, but I suspect many, many more end up sitting out the election altogether.

In broader terms, the Obama/Clinton primary was much more intense, negative, etc. and required more mending of fences.

Are there Sanders supporters that don't like Clinton? Of course. Is it anywhere near a majority? A month ago, a poll found 70% of Sanders supporters would vote for Clinton. That was right after his win in Wisconsin, so not some "defeated" moment in time. And obviously that number would likely only rise from when she is the 'presumed' nominee (just as Trumps numbers rose, even with tepid endorsements, if that).

You can't speak for large swaths of people based on the loud ones you see on TV.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

The democratic party is a British Intelligence operation on the United States to destroy the country. It is satanic it is vandalism. That is all they are. It is the freaks of society. A bunch of fat ugly freaks. Who else would run Hillary Clinton. The democratic party is about destruction of the United States.

 

[qazplm]

The democratic party is a British Intelligence operation on the United States to destroy the country. It is satanic it is vandalism. That is all they are. It is the freaks of society. A bunch of fat ugly freaks. Who else would run Hillary Clinton. The democratic party is about destruction of the United States.

If you'd take off your tinfoil hat you'd recognize that we aren't fat, ugly freaks.

We are big-boned, ugly freaks.

 

[SDBoiler1]

In broader terms, the Obama/Clinton primary was much more intense, negative, etc. and required more mending of fences.

Are there Sanders supporters that don't like Clinton? Of course. Is it anywhere near a majority? A month ago, a poll found 70% of Sanders supporters would vote for Clinton. That was right after his win in Wisconsin, so not some "defeated" moment in time. And obviously that number would likely only rise from when she is the 'presumed' nominee (just as Trumps numbers rose, even with tepid endorsements, if that).

You can't speak for large swaths of people based on the loud ones you see on TV.

Just saw where Kim Strassel from the WSJ said 50% of Clinton supporters polled RECENTLY would vote for Bernie while only about 25% of Bernie supporters would vote for Clinton.

 

[SDBoiler1]

If you'd take off your tinfoil hat you'd recognize that we aren't fat, ugly freaks.

We are big-boned, ugly freaks.

 

[qazplm]

Just saw where Kim Strassel from the WSJ said 50% of Clinton supporters polled RECENTLY would vote for Bernie while only about 25% of Bernie supporters would vote for Clinton.

And 40% of Clinton voters LATER in 08 said they wouldn't vote for Obama. And don't know what poll you are citing...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-partys-divide-isnt-as-big-as-it-was-in-2008/

 

[lbodel]

Just saw where Kim Strassel from the WSJ said 50% of Clinton supporters polled RECENTLY would vote for Bernie while only about 25% of Bernie supporters would vote for Clinton.

So Clinton has gone from 71% voting for her to 25% since May 19 (CBS/NY Times National Poll)? Yikes.

 

[SDBoiler1]

So Clinton has gone from 71% voting for her to 25% since May 19 (CBS/NY Times National Poll)? Yikes.

I guess it depends on which polling you believe more and which one has the best representative sample. Neither of us really know which poll is "better" or more accurate. How many of the people polled are actually going to vote in November, when it counts? So you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. Personally, 71% seems high to me, and 25% seems low to me.

 

[Purdue97]

It's interesting that what was feared by Republicans just a few weeks ago may (may) come to fruition at the Democratic convention. Specifically, if Sanders wins California next week he will have closed the gap enough that a superdelegates may have to consider their votes and things could get contentious. Perhaps a rule change proposal by the Sanders camp to force superdelegates to vote for the person who won their state would swing the vote enough to bump Sanders up.

Or now there's talk of a white night (Joe Biden) coming in and rescuing the party.

It's pretty amazing what Sanders has done. I shudder at the thought of his nomination (no, I would not vote for him). While I think it's still unlikely he ends up the eventual winner of the Democratic primary, I think it's interesting how things have changed where today the Republican party looks relatively stable heading towards the convention and the Democrats are the ones sweating a little bit. Interesting year.

The Presidency was Biden's for the taking. I think he has made it really clear and stated why he does not want it. Bless him cause I have seen the grief losing a son/daughter causes all too many times.

I will say it now. At the Democratic and Republican Conventions, they had better have the National Guard in place. Just look at the behavior of Trump protestors. At a convention at a national level, things will get out of control really quick.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Look the democratic party is a party of limp faced losers. It is a cult of people who are weak and gravitate towards the destruction of America. Plain and simple. They hate this country. It is who these people are. It is vandalism of America. These people only make the worst decisions. Its not mistaken stupidity. Like Hillary Clinton. She as secretary of state actually created her own private email system to funnel classified information to foreign governments, stuff higher than top secret, designated so that the information designation itself is higher than classified, as well as revealing to foreign enemies our methods and operations. Stuff 100 times more classified if not thousands of times more classified than top people at high level spots in the CIA. In CIA headquarters they don't let you take any information out of that building. Hillary took it and put it on the internet for the whole world basically and she gets up on TV acting like she is the victim. She openly committed treason against the country militarily we were attacked. The embassy was attacked and ISIS began. They are attacking all of Europe and they are being imported into Western nations under Royal Institute of Intl Affairs operations to military attack the United States. Hillary was performing off book treason operations and a part of the reason she had private communications networks setup was to tip foreign governments the information they needed to get around the safety nets at the CIA. It was absolute treason. She takes bribes from foreign enemies, billions of dollars, to sell high tech top level military weapons to enemy nations of the United States. Then she gets on TV acting like Trump is bad when her husband gave North Korea nuclear reactors. These people are extremely dangerous enemies of the United States. When Trump gets into office Hillary is going to jail and so are all these other people in the government that ran 911 and all these other operations since. They are traitors and they are going to be dealt with.

Hillary basically took the highest level information at State Department and put it on the internet for the whole world. She basically sold the whole country out.


The democratic party is the party of cucks and traitors. Look at them cuck.

 

[lbodel]

I guess it depends on which polling you believe more and which one has the best representative sample. Neither of us really know which poll is "better" or more accurate. How many of the people polled are actually going to vote in November, when it counts? So you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. Personally, 71% seems high to me, and 25% seems low to me.

But what are you basing that on? What poll was this person citing?

71% sounds about right to me. In the end, you usually see numbers in the 80s. So it makes sense, given that the campaign is going on, that the number is below that and like I said, people are making this "Sanders supporters hate Hillary" but have nothing more than some random die-hards saying that versus any sort of sound/reliable information.

I mean, look at the Republicans for example. How long did people say how horrible Trump is, he's bad for the party, etc. - yet their numbers of supporting him have gone up into the 70s now.

However, like you mentioned, there's also the supporting vs. voting aspect. Polls have gotten better at determining likely voters, but it is still June of an election year. I think more so on the Republican side, if Republicans aren't really strong fans of Trump (Trump I think is still more divisive within the party), they will likely just not vote, not switch to Clinton.

That effect is what remains to be seen. However, come September, October - Sanders likely will be behind Clinton, and not to mention Elizabeth Warren has really come on strong. The progressives will not be alienated.

 

[ecouch]

It's interesting that what was feared by Republicans just a few weeks ago may (may) come to fruition at the Democratic convention. Specifically, if Sanders wins California next week he will have closed the gap enough that a superdelegates may have to consider their votes and things could get contentious. Perhaps a rule change proposal by the Sanders camp to force superdelegates to vote for the person who won their state would swing the vote enough to bump Sanders up.

Or now there's talk of a white night (Joe Biden) coming in and rescuing the party.

It's pretty amazing what Sanders has done. I shudder at the thought of his nomination (no, I would not vote for him). While I think it's still unlikely he ends up the eventual winner of the Democratic primary, I think it's interesting how things have changed where today the Republican party looks relatively stable heading towards the convention and the Democrats are the ones sweating a little bit. Interesting year.

I think you still have it backwards.

Trump is now a known racist. A bigot. You can't call a world leader a loser or comment on his/her nationality.

If Republicans let Trump happen the party is done. There needs to be a convention move, or the GOP is dead. Trump is toxic. Supporting Trump...

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Haha you gotta love these people that say Trump is racist. Its such and act of desperate fools in the democratic party that hate someone like Trump "make America great again". It stands in their faces so true that every decision the democratic party has made is to undermine and destroy the United States. Its such a cuck attack. Can't find anything so call them racist. They did the same with Ron Paul when he tried to audit the FED and it was cuck face retard Sanders who was the deciding vote against it. Meanwhile the KKK was born out of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's idol, her hero Margaret Sanger wrote a book about actually exterminating minorities. Its such a cuck the democratic party is. To deflect their own crimes they all just call Trump racist, but that doesn't make it so sorry. He is coming to bring these cucks down for their globalist treason against the United States enriching themselves at the expense of the complete overthrow and subordination of America to foreign rogue governments such as the UN which is made up mostly of enemy nations contrary to the US. Guess what democrats ur little game is about to end. And your fake republican party with it. The end of this war will be the restoration of America one way or the other.

 

[SDBoiler1]

But what are you basing that on? What poll was this person citing?

71% sounds about right to me. In the end, you usually see numbers in the 80s. So it makes sense, given that the campaign is going on, that the number is below that and like I said, people are making this "Sanders supporters hate Hillary" but have nothing more than some random die-hards saying that versus any sort of sound/reliable information.

I mean, look at the Republicans for example. How long did people say how horrible Trump is, he's bad for the party, etc. - yet their numbers of supporting him have gone up into the 70s now.

However, like you mentioned, there's also the supporting vs. voting aspect. Polls have gotten better at determining likely voters, but it is still June of an election year. I think more so on the Republican side, if Republicans aren't really strong fans of Trump (Trump I think is still more divisive within the party), they will likely just not vote, not switch to Clinton.

That effect is what remains to be seen. However, come September, October - Sanders likely will be behind Clinton, and not to mention Elizabeth Warren has really come on strong. The progressives will not be alienated.

Wrong, the best data I've seen shows Trump with 85% support from Republicans now, not the 70s.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think you still have it backwards.

Trump is now a known racist. A bigot. You can't call a world leader a loser or comment on his/her nationality.

If Republicans let Trump happen the party is done. There needs to be a convention move, or the GOP is dead. Trump is toxic. Supporting Trump...

Thanks for the OT post. I'm no Trump supporter. Stay on topic.