I am not sure which is more cringey, the litany of erroneous assumptions you splayed out or the act of calling upon the student archetype with the intent of derision. Anti-intellectualism, check. src
Clinton won them by a pretty good margin. It was not a squeaker that could easily have been turned one way or another by a little nudge from people in the right places (like some other election that occurred that year).
This isn't even only conservatives, I've seen Berntards make this claim hundreds of times.
They keep trying to claim superdelegates are why Sanders lost even though Clinton bent Sanders over in pledged delegates.
The Berntards then tried to get the superdelegates to go against the will of the voters and flip to Bernie, and even if they did, he still would have lost.
Idg why you retards constantly bring up superdelegates, they vote for the person that wins the fucking primary.
I'm glad you acknowledge that the superdelegates exist solely to allow the party to pick who they want instead of the vote.
I'm baffled as to why I keep seeing people bring up superdelegates as if they're the reason Sanders lost, as if they went against the will of the party to elect Clinton.
Clinton only won by 359 pledged delegates. If the superdelegates went for Sanders the way they did for Clinton, he would've won the primary easily.
I'm seriously curious where this meme came from, where did you read it?
It's not a meme. It's simple math lol. For some reason people like you go ape shit for people bringing it up.
Like if the GOP had superdelegates, I guarantee you Trump wouldn't have won the primary and who knows, maybe the GOP candidate would've even lost the election.
It's not rocket science to let the people who vote for the president choose who they want their nominee to be. Maybe the DNC will learn next time.
I'm glad you acknowledge that the superdelegates exist solely to allow the party to pick who they want instead of the voters.
What? Can you point out when superdelegates have voted against the way the voters did? When have they ever gone against the will of the voters?
Clinton only won by 359 pledged delegates. If the superdelegates went for Sanders the way they did for Clinton, he would've won the primary easily.
??? The superdelegates vote for whoever wins the primary, as in who the voters decide. What the fuck are you even talking about? This makes no sense, do you even understand what superdelegates are?
It's not a meme. It's simple math lol. For some reason people like you go ape shit for people bringing it up.
I'm convinced you literally have a learning disability or you're trolling, you seem to actually just not know what a superdelegate is or how they work.
Like if the GOP had superdelegates, I guarantee you Trump wouldn't have won the primary and who knows, maybe the GOP candidate would've even lost the election.
If the GOP had superdelegates, Trump still would have won the primary, because he got more votes. Again, you've revealed you have no idea how superdelegates work.
Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination
This is what makes them a superdelegate. They could choose to vote for ham sandwhich if they wanted to. If it was just based off the vote, then there would be no need for the distinction.
Can you point out when superdelegates have voted against the way the voters did?
It's easy to see from the math.
Clinton got 0.27 superdelegates for every pledged delegate and Sanders only got 0.026 superdelegates for every pledged. If they were just going with the vote, then the numbers would be equal.
This isn't some conspiracy lol. The DNC has recognized that it's a shitty process and they are changing it
I have no idea why you are choosing this as the hill you need to sperg out on lmao.
No. unfortunately I've had several encounters with pizzashill, but normally it's on topics where he can't resist saying how he thinks Trump is a moron.
This is just desperation trying to protect Hillary, which I wouldn't expect coming from the almost militant woman hater that pizzashill is.
Can you point out when they've gone against the voters?
This is what makes them a superdelegate. They could choose to vote for ham sandwhich if they wanted to. If it was just based off the vote, then there would be no need for the distinction.
The delegates aren't bound by any rule to vote for the winner, but they always do. This is exactly how the electoral college used to work.
Clinton got 0.27 superdelegates for every pledged delegate and Sanders only got 0.026 superdelegates for every pledged. If they were just going with the vote, then the numbers would be equal.
I'm convinced you literally have a learning disability. Clinton won pledged delegates:
So, I want you to in detail explain to me how in the ever living fuck you think Bernie Sanders lost the 2016 democratic primary because of superdelegates.
Clinton demolished him on a national level. Clinton was overwhelmingly the winner of that primary.
The super delegates are for the nominee leaves the running during the primaries, say death or otherwise. This allows for better control of the DNC so that Trump can't walk in last minute and grab a bunch of delegates. They aren't for a subversion of what the voters wanted like how the Bernstein bear think. But the craziest thing of all of this is Russia was trying to get him elected as well and yet the same people that want Bernie president also want Trump's head.
I don't think Russia was trying to get Bernie elected. They were just trying to damage Clinton by sucking voters away from her, and dumb ass college kids are easy targets.
Right, this is a retarded take. They wanted anyone that would cause damage to the united states on the world stage and destabilize the united states internally.
The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[9]
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9]
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[9]
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[9]
Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".[9]
The Kremlin apparently believes it has found the ultimate wedge issue to unite its supporters and divide its opponents, both in Russia and the West, and garner support in the developing world. They seem to believe they have found the ideology that will return Russia to its rightful place as a great power with a messianic mission and the ability to win hearts and minds globally.
As the West becomes increasingly multicultural, less patriarchal and traditional, and more open to gay rights, Russia will be a lodestone for the multitudes who oppose this trajectory. Just as the Communist International, or Comintern, and what Soviet ideologists called the "correlation of forces" sought to unite progressive elements around the globe behind Moscow, the world's traditionalists will now line up behind Putin.
And there is some evidence that this message may be resonating.
"While his stance as a defender of traditional values has drawn the mockery of Western media and cultural elites, Putin is not wrong in saying that he can speak for much of mankind," conservative American commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote. "Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught in a Cold War paradigm."
One 20 year old book is supposed to tell us what Putin is thinking right now in today's world stage?
Is there any proof Putin even plans to follow the author of that book?
Sounds conspiracy theorist-y to me.
Russia has no chance of global influence in today's world. Their economic and military power are shrinking, that the best they can hope for is peace with the West, not destabilizing us like some Austin Powers boogeyman.
They don't have the power or ability to take on the mantle and they know it.
The author is a nutjob, almost an Alex Jones of Russia, who often disagrees with Putin's way of ruling. I don't see how that book is reflective of Russia's actions and intentions today.
Furthermore, let's talk common sense here.
If you're Russia, with a dwindling economy and military might, would you prioritize having peace with powerful nations and fix your economy? Or would you prioritize attacking the most powerful nation? A prudent leader would pick the former. Which was my point; that they were favoring any candidate non-hostile to Russia.
Taking any hostile action against the US now is suicidal for Russia. Only a madman (like Dugin) would try something like that at this juncture.
The author is a nutjob, almost an Alex Jones of Russia, who often disagrees with Putin's way of ruling. I don't see how that book is reflective of Russia's actions and intentions today.
The book was co-authored by a Russian general and is, from what it seems, being read by the Russian officer core.
Taking any hostile action against the US now is suicidal for Russia. Only a madman (like Dugin) would try something like that at this juncture.
You keep trying this shit, but the evidence is overwhelming. They very clearly tried to destabilize the united states and still are, are you going to believe your own eyes or not?
My own eyes are telling me Russia is not run by an idiot who doesn't prioritize its survival. If any action is to be taken to destabilize the US, it would be when Russia is having a stable economy and have the resources to take any fallout from it.
Any reasonable person would be prioritizing a peaceful co-existence with the US now; a "time-out".
So I reject your assumption that the 2016 election was a push for destabilization, rather than a push for reduced hostility.
Lmao what? Clinton was leading in every poll before a single super delegate was listed. It's interesting to me how far you people will go to avoid admitting Bernie lost.
I'll prove my point; show me a single empirical, peer-reviewed paper saying Sanders lost because superdelegates siding with Clinton.
Wow, it's almost like winner takes all makes electoral college victories look bigger than they actually are. 2016 was decided by about 80k votes in 3 states. It was absurdly close.
She took an almost entire three points swing in PA from polls to actual results. The media was treating Clinton like a slam dunk. PA voted Democrat for six elections before Clinton came along.
The media was shocked by Trump winning and didn't see it coming.
This is hilarious, are you going to keep doubling down on this?
She took an almost entire three points swing in PA from polls to actual results.
Not 3%, and even if it were 3% it'd be within a standard polling error.
The media was treating Clinton like a slam dunk.
That's neat, you claimed the polls said Clinton would easily win, now that you've been proven wrong you're trying to jump to the media.
PA voted Democrat for six elections before Clinton came along.
Ok? Should I explain to you demographic swings, or how the entire concept of the "blue wall" was always a myth? PA wasn't a state hostile to Republicans, it's a purple state at best which is why Republicans were registering gains on the state level there for years.
Jumping to the media? Who do you think makes many of those polls if not the media? Hillary Clinton was the most unlikeable Democrat going back to at least the 1970s and it isn't even close. DNC and media still pushed her front and center and here we are today.
Randomly started talking about the media after being proven wrong.
Randomly shifted to how Clinton was unpopular.
This is where I'll take my leave, I've put you in the dirt enough for one day and I'm starting to feel bad, watching you flop around and constantly try to change the argument after your point is refuted is making me depressed.
Yes I can, because a primary is not a real election, it's a party selection with no obligation to even have a vote.
If its not - why even having Primaries and ask people to vote - only to tell them to fuck off when they dont vote for "the right" candidate.
Not to mention the superdelegates are there to stop a Trump
You mean to stop people like Sanders.
like the electoral college was intended to do.
electoral college is there to give significant voice to smaller individual states in union, not to stop anyone from anything.
If we used the electoral college correctly, or how it was intended to be used, I'd be fine with it.
so when something works in your favor (as superdelegates for ex) you have nothing against it. but when it doesnt you are against it. unique stance really.
But we don't, so the entire thing is pointless and does nothing but hand small states disproportionate electoral power.
because fuck middAmerikkka - am I right or am I right - right?
To compare superdelegates in this way to the electoral college is well beyond retarded, I don't even know a word for it.
If its not - why even having Primaries and ask people to vote - only to tell them to fuck off when they dont vote for "the right" candidate.
Because obviously, it's good to let a party decide who their candidate is. But the DNC, if they so wanted, could just declare someone their candidate and that'd be that.
They aren't real elections.
You mean to stop people like Sanders.
Considering superdelegates tend to just vote however the party does, no, not really. Superdelegates are only there to stop crazies, Sanders didn't meet that profile which is why the superdelegates had nothing to do with him losing.
He lost because he managed to lose nearly every relevant demographic by overwhelming margins.
electoral college is there to give significant voice to smaller individual states in union, not to stop anyone from anything.
No it's not you ape. The electoral college was literally, originally there to stop a crazy. That's why the electors weren't bound to any popular vote in their state at first.
A primary point of the college was to stop a demagogue.
Consider what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 68. The Electors were supposed to stop a candidate with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming President. The Electors were supposed to be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
They were to “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” as the selection of the President, and they were supposed to “afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.” They were even supposed to prevent “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
Nice try though.
so when something works in your favor (as superdelegates for ex) you have nothing against it. but when it doesnt you are against it. unique stance really.
When did the superdelegates ever go against the will of the party??
because fuck middAmerikkka - am I right or am I right - right?
TIL saying 1 person 1 vote is "fuck middle America" because of course middle Americans deserve 2-3x the political power other Americans do just because, right?
Funny how the only person here trying to argue for electoral suppression is you, but somehow I'm the one saying "fuck those guys."
Oh come on. We all know the fix was in from the beginning. Poor old Bernie never had a real shot. They just used him to rope all the little hipsters into being Democrats. Classic bait and switch.
If primary voters showed up then Bernie would have won. You have nothing to blame except the democratic system in which candidates win by securing more votes than their opponents.
When a man wins the election after the media literally told people he was going to deport all Mexican people and electrocute gays, the only direction you can go is up.
It was like when the entire media started crowing about how Presidential(tm) Trump was when he finally found the "bomb foreign country" button. When you set the expectations so low, people are just happy Trump isn't literally shitting his pants on stage.
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that the only vote you thing is pride-worthy is one for the candidate you voted for. In other words, everyone who voted differently from me is stupid.
That the winner-take-all assignment of electoral votes for California, in which Clinton had an overwhelming lead, means my vote for Stein in no way jeopardized Clinton's chances?
I literally have stopped dating someone because they claimed they didn't keep up with politics, and still don't. Then they followed up with "Yeah, I voted for Gary Johnson, but I don't know what Trump did that was so bad..."
You mean besides going into fully unenforceable agreements with Russia and North Korea? Allowing Puerto Rico to stay damaged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria? Removing LGBT rights from the White House's platform? Giving a tax break to companies, only to watch those companies immediately move jobs overseas, which he promised would not happen (granted it was their move, but still)? Imposing tariffs on countries that actually aid in our economy? Looking the other way on Russian interference, unless he wants to claim the democrats are cheating?
Suffice it to say, I am not having a second date with that guy.
I bet the conversation went like this:
"You mean besides going into fully unenforceable agreements with Russia and North Korea? Allowing Puerto Rico to stay damaged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria? Removing LGBT rights from the White House's platform? Giving a tax break to companies, only to watch those companies immediately move jobs overseas, which he promised would not happen (granted it was their move, but still)? Imposing tariffs on countries that actually aid in our economy? Looking the other way on Russian interference, unless he wants to claim the democrats are cheating?"
"You OK there? I'm gonna go see if they can get you some water <runs for the door>"
98 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-08-07
I am not sure which is more cringey, the litany of erroneous assumptions you splayed out or the act of calling upon the student archetype with the intent of derision. Anti-intellectualism, check. src
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 FirearmThrowaway 2018-08-07
If I recall properly the primaries were rigged.
1 watermark02 2018-08-07
Clinton won them by a pretty good margin. It was not a squeaker that could easily have been turned one way or another by a little nudge from people in the right places (like some other election that occurred that year).
1 Think_Once 2018-08-07
As soon as any sane person saw that Bernie rallies were just filled with 20 year old students, it was clear that Hillary would win.
1 zhanx 2018-08-07
which is funny as Hillary only had like 20 people at her rallies. But it was her turn! 1.4 billion later politics is a job I want now.
1 myshl0ng 2018-08-07
I wonder if all the (((lenders))) just wrote that money off or is Killary polishing some nobs in a basement somewhere for the next 20 years.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-08-07
IIRC, if you exclude super delegates it was a pretty close race. Just all the DNC insiders picked Hillary because it was her turn TM
1 ___-III----III-___ 2018-08-07
Pretty close until the south voted. Turns out black people don't like Bernie that much.
1 DoubleCheekedUp 2018-08-07
niggas be Jwoke in the dirty dirty
1 Admins_Suck_Dick 2018-08-07
Which is odd, considering Sanders actually marched in the civil rights movement
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
It was not a close race. Idg why you retards constantly bring up superdelegates, they vote for the person that wins the fucking primary.
That primary was pretty much a landslide:
1 ItsSugar 2018-08-07
Expecting conservautists to understand math over irate talking points.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
This isn't even only conservatives, I've seen Berntards make this claim hundreds of times.
They keep trying to claim superdelegates are why Sanders lost even though Clinton bent Sanders over in pledged delegates.
The Berntards then tried to get the superdelegates to go against the will of the voters and flip to Bernie, and even if they did, he still would have lost.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-08-07
I'm glad you acknowledge that the superdelegates exist solely to allow the party to pick who they want instead of the vote.
Clinton only won by 359 pledged delegates. If the superdelegates went for Sanders the way they did for Clinton, he would've won the primary easily.
It's not a meme. It's simple math lol. For some reason people like you go ape shit for people bringing it up.
Like if the GOP had superdelegates, I guarantee you Trump wouldn't have won the primary and who knows, maybe the GOP candidate would've even lost the election.
It's not rocket science to let the people who vote for the president choose who they want their nominee to be. Maybe the DNC will learn next time.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
What? Can you point out when superdelegates have voted against the way the voters did? When have they ever gone against the will of the voters?
??? The superdelegates vote for whoever wins the primary, as in who the voters decide. What the fuck are you even talking about? This makes no sense, do you even understand what superdelegates are?
I'm convinced you literally have a learning disability or you're trolling, you seem to actually just not know what a superdelegate is or how they work.
If the GOP had superdelegates, Trump still would have won the primary, because he got more votes. Again, you've revealed you have no idea how superdelegates work.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-08-07
This is patently untrue. From wikipedia:
This is what makes them a superdelegate. They could choose to vote for ham sandwhich if they wanted to. If it was just based off the vote, then there would be no need for the distinction.
It's easy to see from the math.
Clinton got 0.27 superdelegates for every pledged delegate and Sanders only got 0.026 superdelegates for every pledged. If they were just going with the vote, then the numbers would be equal.
This isn't some conspiracy lol. The DNC has recognized that it's a shitty process and they are changing it
I have no idea why you are choosing this as the hill you need to sperg out on lmao.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-08-07
It's pizzashill...do you really need to ask? Or are you new here?
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-08-07
No. unfortunately I've had several encounters with pizzashill, but normally it's on topics where he can't resist saying how he thinks Trump is a moron.
This is just desperation trying to protect Hillary, which I wouldn't expect coming from the almost militant woman hater that pizzashill is.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-08-07
You just haven't been paying attention then.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Can you point out when they've gone against the voters?
The delegates aren't bound by any rule to vote for the winner, but they always do. This is exactly how the electoral college used to work.
I'm convinced you literally have a learning disability. Clinton won pledged delegates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Clinton won 55% of the popular vote in that primary.
https://www.politico.com/mapdata-2016/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker/
Clinton won over 2800 delegates.
Bernie Sanders won just 1893 delegates.
So, I want you to in detail explain to me how in the ever living fuck you think Bernie Sanders lost the 2016 democratic primary because of superdelegates.
Clinton demolished him on a national level. Clinton was overwhelmingly the winner of that primary.
1 blindcandyman 2018-08-07
The super delegates are for the nominee leaves the running during the primaries, say death or otherwise. This allows for better control of the DNC so that Trump can't walk in last minute and grab a bunch of delegates. They aren't for a subversion of what the voters wanted like how the Bernstein bear think. But the craziest thing of all of this is Russia was trying to get him elected as well and yet the same people that want Bernie president also want Trump's head.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
I don't think Russia was trying to get Bernie elected. They were just trying to damage Clinton by sucking voters away from her, and dumb ass college kids are easy targets.
The goal was always Trump.
1 whataboutThe_Donald 2018-08-07
WRONG
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Literally an objective fact.
1 zhanx 2018-08-07
The goal was Clinton, why else would Russian donate that much to the clintion foundation? Because they are nice?
1 push_ecx_0x00 2018-08-07
they wanted nudes
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
I hope to god you aren't actually this retarded.
1 iodisedsalt 2018-08-07
Russia wanted anyone but Hillary because she was very openly hostile to them.
1 -4x- 2018-08-07
Imagine thinking that Clinton is not corrupt enough to badmouth Russia while doing some shady business behind the scenes.
1 iodisedsalt 2018-08-07
Perhaps Russia is not the only avenue for corruption?
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Right, this is a retarded take. They wanted anyone that would cause damage to the united states on the world stage and destabilize the united states internally.
Donald Trump was that person.
1 iodisedsalt 2018-08-07
You speak so matter-of-factly like you know?
My take is based on the more reasonable view that it is far more in their interest to have a candidate who is not hostile to them than one who is.
Not this old-fashioned, cold war mentality you have (which is less beneficial to Russia).
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
We know, for a fact, that Russia supported Donald Trump, and we know, for a fact, they did it to destabilize the united states.
1 iodisedsalt 2018-08-07
Yes.
Are you Russia that you know their intentions?
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Lmao:
Or, you know:
Wake up.
1 iodisedsalt 2018-08-07
One 20 year old book is supposed to tell us what Putin is thinking right now in today's world stage?
Is there any proof Putin even plans to follow the author of that book?
Sounds conspiracy theorist-y to me.
Russia has no chance of global influence in today's world. Their economic and military power are shrinking, that the best they can hope for is peace with the West, not destabilizing us like some Austin Powers boogeyman.
They don't have the power or ability to take on the mantle and they know it.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Dude, go look into the history of that book and then read the article from 2013.
1 iodisedsalt 2018-08-07
The author is a nutjob, almost an Alex Jones of Russia, who often disagrees with Putin's way of ruling. I don't see how that book is reflective of Russia's actions and intentions today.
Furthermore, let's talk common sense here.
If you're Russia, with a dwindling economy and military might, would you prioritize having peace with powerful nations and fix your economy? Or would you prioritize attacking the most powerful nation? A prudent leader would pick the former. Which was my point; that they were favoring any candidate non-hostile to Russia.
Taking any hostile action against the US now is suicidal for Russia. Only a madman (like Dugin) would try something like that at this juncture.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
The book was co-authored by a Russian general and is, from what it seems, being read by the Russian officer core.
You keep trying this shit, but the evidence is overwhelming. They very clearly tried to destabilize the united states and still are, are you going to believe your own eyes or not?
1 iodisedsalt 2018-08-07
My own eyes are telling me Russia is not run by an idiot who doesn't prioritize its survival. If any action is to be taken to destabilize the US, it would be when Russia is having a stable economy and have the resources to take any fallout from it.
Any reasonable person would be prioritizing a peaceful co-existence with the US now; a "time-out".
So I reject your assumption that the 2016 election was a push for destabilization, rather than a push for reduced hostility.
1 istural 2018-08-07
Bernie bros are retarded pizza, ignore them.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-08-07
You ignore the superdelegates declaring for Clinton right in the beginning making it seem like a landslide before it even started.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Lmao what? Clinton was leading in every poll before a single super delegate was listed. It's interesting to me how far you people will go to avoid admitting Bernie lost.
I'll prove my point; show me a single empirical, peer-reviewed paper saying Sanders lost because superdelegates siding with Clinton.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-08-07
Oh, "in the polls" like the polls that called her a slam dunk on election night.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Is this where you reveal you don't understand polling and lie about what the polls actually said?
The polls were literally within margin of error in 2016, they were more accurate in 2016 than they were in 2012.
Have you even looked at the polls in the final leak leading up to the election?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-08-07
She had over three points advantage and Trump still managed to get over 300 electoral votes.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Wow, it's almost like winner takes all makes electoral college victories look bigger than they actually are. 2016 was decided by about 80k votes in 3 states. It was absurdly close.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/the-election-came-down-to-77-744-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan-updated
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-08-07
She took an almost entire three points swing in PA from polls to actual results. The media was treating Clinton like a slam dunk. PA voted Democrat for six elections before Clinton came along.
The media was shocked by Trump winning and didn't see it coming.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
This is hilarious, are you going to keep doubling down on this?
Not 3%, and even if it were 3% it'd be within a standard polling error.
That's neat, you claimed the polls said Clinton would easily win, now that you've been proven wrong you're trying to jump to the media.
Ok? Should I explain to you demographic swings, or how the entire concept of the "blue wall" was always a myth? PA wasn't a state hostile to Republicans, it's a purple state at best which is why Republicans were registering gains on the state level there for years.
Take this article from 2015:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-is-no-blue-wall/
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-08-07
Jumping to the media? Who do you think makes many of those polls if not the media? Hillary Clinton was the most unlikeable Democrat going back to at least the 1970s and it isn't even close. DNC and media still pushed her front and center and here we are today.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
So now we've:
Claimed the polls were wrong, only to be refuted.
Randomly started talking about the media after being proven wrong.
Randomly shifted to how Clinton was unpopular.
This is where I'll take my leave, I've put you in the dirt enough for one day and I'm starting to feel bad, watching you flop around and constantly try to change the argument after your point is refuted is making me depressed.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-08-07
She had over 3 point lead and lost. She had huge fucking leads throughout the whole election and treated it like a slam dunk.
1 JabroniMark99 2018-08-07
https://imgur.com/a/MydILec this is what you look like.
1 imguralbumbot 2018-08-07
Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image
https://i.imgur.com/ww2xDOB.jpg
Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme | deletthis
1 serialflamingo 2018-08-07
Why are shitlibs obsessed with this phrase? lmao
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-08-07
https://imgur.com/A5LWNxf
1 zenicaone 2018-08-07
well you cant complain about electoral college and be fine with superDelegates at the same time.
I mean you can but that would mean that you are retard... oh wait.
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Yes I can, because a primary is not a real election, it's a party selection with no obligation to even have a vote.
1 zenicaone 2018-08-07
If its not - why even having Primaries and ask people to vote - only to tell them to fuck off when they dont vote for "the right" candidate.
You mean to stop people like Sanders.
electoral college is there to give significant voice to smaller individual states in union, not to stop anyone from anything.
so when something works in your favor (as superdelegates for ex) you have nothing against it. but when it doesnt you are against it. unique stance really.
because fuck middAmerikkka - am I right or am I right - right?
I dont even too
1 pizzashill 2018-08-07
Because obviously, it's good to let a party decide who their candidate is. But the DNC, if they so wanted, could just declare someone their candidate and that'd be that.
They aren't real elections.
Considering superdelegates tend to just vote however the party does, no, not really. Superdelegates are only there to stop crazies, Sanders didn't meet that profile which is why the superdelegates had nothing to do with him losing.
He lost because he managed to lose nearly every relevant demographic by overwhelming margins.
No it's not you ape. The electoral college was literally, originally there to stop a crazy. That's why the electors weren't bound to any popular vote in their state at first.
http://time.com/4575119/electoral-college-demagogues/
A primary point of the college was to stop a demagogue.
Nice try though.
When did the superdelegates ever go against the will of the party??
TIL saying 1 person 1 vote is "fuck middle America" because of course middle Americans deserve 2-3x the political power other Americans do just because, right?
Funny how the only person here trying to argue for electoral suppression is you, but somehow I'm the one saying "fuck those guys."
1 serialflamingo 2018-08-07
Why are you retards still obsessed with the primaries in that case?
1 Maxwyfe 2018-08-07
Oh come on. We all know the fix was in from the beginning. Poor old Bernie never had a real shot. They just used him to rope all the little hipsters into being Democrats. Classic bait and switch.
1 UmmahSultan 2018-08-07
If primary voters showed up then Bernie would have won. You have nothing to blame except the democratic system in which candidates win by securing more votes than their opponents.
1 zenicaone 2018-08-07
Clinton won by almost all "superDelegates" voting for her.
no superDelegates and she would lose
1 Mat_The_49th 2018-08-07
Not feasible due to oxy abuse and advanced boomerism.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-08-07
This and /r/walkaway are two sides of the same retarded coin.
1 FrostBittenSalsa 2018-08-07
Day of the Horseshoe when?
1 CSharpApostle 2018-08-07
Ay insert shitty nazbol gang meme compilation #7
1 FrostBittenSalsa 2018-08-07
Now with added distorted bass!
1 ry8919 2018-08-07
/r/walkaway is just /r/AsABlackMan but for "Democrats".
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-08-07
You double posted
1 ry8919 2018-08-07
/r/walkaway is just /r/AsABlackMan but for "Democrats".
1 headasplodes 2018-08-07
How long until /r/politics starts posting quotes from crazy drug addicted hobos who hate trump?
1 Butch_Patterson 2018-08-07
Starts?
1 wolfdreams01 2018-08-07
Crazy Old Vagrant: "Oi thought Trump would fix this rash on me rectum, but it done got worse!"
Eager Reporter with a degree in Performative Dance:"I see sir, and do you regret voting for Trump?"
Crazy Old Vagrant: "A what now? Trump's the name of me soap."
cut to commercial
1 chumthescrubber 2018-08-07
He washed himself with a Trump steak
1 seshfan2 2018-08-07
I don't like the "Trumpgret" narrative, because it implies that Trump voters are capable of learning, critical thinking, or self-awareness.
1 Fiat-Libertas 2018-08-07
It's just not effective.
When a man wins the election after the media literally told people he was going to deport all Mexican people and electrocute gays, the only direction you can go is up.
1 seshfan2 2018-08-07
It was like when the entire media started crowing about how Presidential(tm) Trump was when he finally found the "bomb foreign country" button. When you set the expectations so low, people are just happy Trump isn't literally shitting his pants on stage.
1 Chicup 2018-08-07
Or you might mention record low unemployment, 4.1% GDP growth, NK talks, you know that sort of thing.
1 JazzlikeInfluence 2018-08-07
That's all good, but how are we doing on the electrocuting gays situation?
1 Chicup 2018-08-07
Horribly behind schedule.
1 aqouta 2018-08-07
Bullets dodge you now, that's so convenient.
1 thrillhouze- 2018-08-07
Only in Soviet Russia
1 SmurfPrivilege 2018-08-07
Voted for Stein. No ragrets...mostly because I live in California and I understand how the electoral college works.
1 dissident87 2018-08-07
She’s as retarded as trump. That’s not a vote you should be proud of
1 SmurfPrivilege 2018-08-07
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that the only vote you thing is pride-worthy is one for the candidate you voted for. In other words, everyone who voted differently from me is stupid.
1 dissident87 2018-08-07
Dude voting is fucking gay
1 SmurfPrivilege 2018-08-07
Oh! You got me with that surprise twist. Teenage nihilism is the only legitimate platform for the true gentlesir!
1 DoubleCheekedUp 2018-08-07
er excuse me sir are you aware that we watch rick and morty in this subreddit?
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-08-07
What If I didn't vote because all of the candidates were shit and I just do not give a fuck enough about which ended up as president?
1 SmurfPrivilege 2018-08-07
Then you shouldn't care who other people voted for.
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-08-07
I don't tho.
1 serialflamingo 2018-08-07
This
1 MR_CLARENCE_ASSLER 2018-08-07
Yeah, at least his stock portfolio has gone up bigly, which he needed a magic wand to make happen. Oh wait, that doesn't matter to retards like you.
1 SilverMars 2018-08-07
Grandma Healing Crystals wasn't much better of a choice.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2018-08-07
She's the only candidate who's not a rapist or married to a rapist, so what am I supposed to do?
1 dissident87 2018-08-07
Who did Gary Johnson rape?
1 SmurfPrivilege 2018-08-07
Dude's got a penis. The question is, who hasn't he raped with that thing.
1 GARBAGE_MACHINE 2018-08-07
Aleppo
1 SwiftOnSobriety 2018-08-07
Libertarians.
1 MayoIsSpicy 2018-08-07
Idk, but he has an Alleppenis and as far as I’m concerned that’s worse.
1 cheers_grills 2018-08-07
Me.
1 SwiftOnSobriety 2018-08-07
I have...doubts.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2018-08-07
That the winner-take-all assignment of electoral votes for California, in which Clinton had an overwhelming lead, means my vote for Stein in no way jeopardized Clinton's chances?
1 wisty 2018-08-07
I bet the conversation went like this:
1 Harbinger147 2018-08-07
Lol I bet that dude fucking ran out the door, didn’t even pay the check. What moron freaks out that someone really doesn’t care about politics.
1 nanonan 2018-08-07
Meanwhile a movement with dozens of videos a day of Americans walking away from the Dems is merely Russian propaganda.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-08-07
This but unironically. Only a retard would fall for walkaway.
1 nanonan 2018-08-07
Holy fuck we have a live one. So tell me, who do you think should be the candidate to oppose Trump in 2020?
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-08-07
Kanye
1 nanonan 2018-08-07
Wrong team.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-08-07
The DDF can calm down because the sheer incompetence of the Dems will hand Daddy a second term.
1 mohkohnsepicgun 2018-08-07
Well I guess we're going to find out, aren't we?
1 shallowm 2018-08-07
💯😂👌
1 TheWanderingVale 2018-08-07
How can liberals be virgins if the only ones who have abortions are the evil commie libs?
1 mohkohnsepicgun 2018-08-07
A lot of Blessed Southern Belles don't like to talk about the real reason they took that trip to the Godless North.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-08-07
In PA she took an almost 3 point swing in results versus the polls the day of the election.
1 MarcusAurelius0 2018-08-07
This is just as bad as the damn im leaving movement T_D is promoting.
1 837825 2018-08-07
You retards need to learn how to link and not to vote- and comment-brigade.
1 Fataleo 2018-08-07
" I met a Trump supporter , he was literally Hitler reincarnated "
1 myshl0ng 2018-08-07
I don't think you can even get it up with soy running through your veins
1 mohkohnsepicgun 2018-08-07
My nipples stand a clear two inches from my chest.