Voltaire 4,531 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: .... he can't catch up to her she's 3.5 million ahead in votes and 300 delegates ahead. She doesn't have to win. In fact she's stopped trying. She has it in the bag. All I ask is that you stop perpetuating that lie that he is leading the national polls. He isn't. In your constant rush to reply to every comment in a political thread with a knee-jerk reaction, I think you missed what I said...again. "IF...he continues to rise in national polling" "IF" means its contingent on a change in the current data. As in, its not true now, BUT IF IT CONTINUES TO TREND UP, it would be. He trends up, she trends down. I didn't say he'd get the nomination. I didn't say he has more of the popular vote. I didn't say he is currently leading in national polls. Please read comments fully before blasting off on them. What I said is entirely true- its not even arguable. Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
socotra 3,357 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 1 minute ago, Voltaire said: In your constant rush to reply to every comment in a political thread with a knee-jerk reaction, I think you missed what I said...again. "IF...he continues to rise in national polling" "IF" means its contingent on a change in the current data. As in, its not true now, BUT IF IT CONTINUES TO TREND UP, it would be. He trends up, she trends down. I didn't say he'd get the nomination. I didn't say he has more of the popular vote. I didn't say he is currently leading in national polls. Please read comments fully before blasting off on them. What I said is entirely true- its not even arguable. ily Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 14 minutes ago, Voltaire said: In your constant rush to reply to every comment in a political thread with a knee-jerk reaction, I think you missed what I said...again. "IF...he continues to rise in national polling" "IF" means its contingent on a change in the current data. As in, its not true now, BUT IF IT CONTINUES TO TREND UP, it would be. He trends up, she trends down. I didn't say he'd get the nomination. I didn't say he has more of the popular vote. I didn't say he is currently leading in national polls. Please read comments fully before blasting off on them. What I said is entirely true- its not even arguable. Do you have to insult me by commenting on my forum response rate? I know you said "if". It's why I didn't call you out on your logic. My third and final comment was regarding your assessment that will never happen. Your "if" is mathematically and logically impossible considering the data. Stop raising people's false hopes by issuing grandiose statements. He doesn't have the lead. He won't ever have the lead. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltaire 4,531 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said: Do you have to insult me by commenting on my forum response rate? I know you said "if". It's why I didn't call you out on your logic. My third and final comment was regarding your assessment that will never happen. Your "if" is mathematically and logically impossible considering the data. Stop raising people's false hopes by issuing grandiose statements. He doesn't have the lead. He won't ever have the lead. My first comment in this thread was pretty clear. IF he continues to trend up in national polling, WHEN she gets the nomination, it'll be the first time in polling history (that I am aware of) where the nominee is not leading in national aggregate polling. Thats my statement. If you have an example where its happened in the past then I'd be interested to know in what race it was. Other than that, its really not a debatable comment. Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, Voltaire said: My first comment in this thread was pretty clear. IF he continues to trend up in national polling, WHEN she gets the nomination, it'll be the first time in polling history (that I am aware of) where the nominee is not leading in national aggregate polling. Thats my statement. If you have an example where its happened in the past and then I'd be interested to know in what race it was, then I'd like to know. Other than that, its really not a debatable comment. I do have an example: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show Go to the 8 or 9 minute mark. Maddow, an unbiased Democratic reporter who has shown favor to neither Hillary or Sanders, remarked on Bernie's chances and compared them to the Obama/Clinton race. --- In any case I may have worded myself incorrectly. Your "if" isn't technically arguable, but it is fantastical. That's why I told you to stop spreading the "lie" that Sanders has some national favor. It's something that he and his supporters like to tout when it's unequivocally wrong. Honestly it's less about Hillary now and more about being concerned that many young voters are being dragged into disillusionment and echo chambers that can potentially have lasting impact on their voting habits. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltaire 4,531 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said: I do have an example: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show Go to the 8 or 9 minute mark. Maddow, an unbiased Democratic reporter who has shown favor to neither Hillary or Sanders, remarked on Bernie's chances. --- In any case I may have worded myself incorrectly. Your "if" isn't technically arguable, but it is fantastical. That's why I told you to stop spreading the "lie" that Sanders has some national favor. It's something that he and his supporters like to tout when it's unequivocally wrong. Honestly it's less about Hillary now and more about being concerned that many young voters are being dragged into disillusionment that can potentially have lasting impact on their voting habits. I don't think Bernie has a chance at the nomination. I've clearly said now, twice, "when she gets the nomination". It was a commentary on national aggregate polling, thats all. Not sure why you have an issue with the "trivia" style statement I've made of: When she gets the nomination, if she's not leading in national polling, it'll be the first occurrence of this in polling history. It's not a radical statement. It's just a trivia notation on yet another aspect of the wildly interesting election cycle we've seen on both sides. Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, Voltaire said: I don't think Bernie has a chance at the nomination. I've clearly said now, twice, "when she gets the nomination". It was a commentary on national aggregate polling, thats all. Not sure why you have an issue with the "trivia" style statement I've made of: When she gets the nomination, if she's not leading in national polling, it'll be the first occurrence of this in polling history. It's not a radical statement. It's just a trivia notation on yet another aspect of the wildly interesting election cycle we've seen on both sides. Well I haven't really commented on the nomination. It's more about the national favor/polls aspect. If he had had it he wouldn't be in this position right now. The remaining states aren't some hot bed of Bernie votes. He's massively behind by 3.5 million voters and significantly behind in minority votes. I'm honestly not taking issue with you making random statements like that. The issue is that this trivia statement is something that is already being perpetuated across the voter base, and is also indicative of this persistent feeling that many Bernie supporters have that they are somehow being screwed over. Sanders has broken many records, a lot of them quite impressive. There's no need to create new fantastical ones, when the only purpose they may serve is disappointment. That's my issue with what you said. I want Bernie supporters to get a reality check for their sake and ours. There is no need to perpetuate this notion that there is a logical chance that he will get the national favor. That is all. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion Heart 15,041 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 ▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltaire 4,531 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Just now, LebaneseDude said: Well I haven't really commented on the nomination. It's more about the national favor/polls aspect. If he had had it he wouldn't be in this position right now. The remaining states aren't some hot bed of Bernie votes. I'm honestly not taking issue with you making random statements like that. The issue is that this trivia statement is something that is already being perpetuated across the voter base, and is also indicative of this persistent feeling that many Bernie supporters have that they are somehow being screwed over. Sanders has broken many records, a lot of them quite impressive. There's no need to create new fantastical ones, when the only purpose they may serve is disappointment. That's my issue with what you said. I want Bernie supporters to get a reality check for their sake and ours. My apologies for giving you reason for alarm or to take issue. Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Just now, Voltaire said: My apologies for giving you reason for alarm or to take issue. Well I'm not sure if you're being cynical or not, but there's no need to apologize. I commented on your post. Take it as you will. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMKKARDASHiAN 8,570 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Pablo said: from indiana but didn't vote oops Me too! Where are you from? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivingtonreb 438 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Just now, PMKKARDASHiAN said: Me too! Where are you from? Smh y'all rude GOH sweetie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivingtonreb 438 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 California is ready for you Bernie GOH sweetie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion Heart 15,041 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Congrats to Bernie on his win. The next contest will be in Guam on Saturday May 7. I'm not sure how this one will turn out. Only 12 delegates will be awarded. Next up is West Virginia on May 10, and I believe Bernie is favored to win there. Only 37 delegates will be awarded there. The final contests in May are Oregon and Kentucky May 17 with 60 and 74 delegates awarded respectively. And then the final showdown June 7 with CA, NJ, etc. vote (if it gets to that). ▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMKKARDASHiAN 8,570 Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Just now, rivingtonreb said: Smh y'all rude Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.