Jump to content
270soft Forum

NV CAUCUS RESULTS THREAD


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, billay said:

Looks like the Bern is running away with it killing it with Hispanics and a strong 2nd with blacks.

Starting to think this thing is over.....

Which thing?  Nevada, absolutely.  But if you're talking about the nomination, we still have months to go.  The other candidates aren't going to crown Bernie.  He's going to have to earn it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Which thing?  Nevada, absolutely.  But if you're talking about the nomination, we still have months to go.  The other candidates aren't going to crown Bernie.  He's going to have to earn it.

NV over. 

 

Over Over if he wins CA, TX, MA, NC. Hes ahead in all of those states currently. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billay said:

NV over. 

 

Over Over if he wins CA, TX, MA, NC. Hes ahead in all of those states currently. 

Every state awards delegates proportionally.  He needs 50% +1 of all delegates.  So far, he hasn't passed 50% in a single state.  He could win every single state and still fall short by 20% or so.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Every state awards delegates proportionally.  He needs 50% +1 of all delegates.  So far, he hasn't passed 50% in a single state.  He could win every single state and still fall short by 20% or so.  

Opinions on Buttigeg staying in past ST? He's practically begging for money right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wolves said:

Opinions on Buttigeg staying in past ST? He's practically begging for money right now.

I'm not sure if you've ever heard a politician speak.  Haha.  They are all constantly asking for money.  Buttigieg has raised the second most money, behind Bernie.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I'm not sure if you've ever heard a politician speak.  Haha.  They are all constantly asking for money.  Buttigieg has raised the second most money, behind Bernie.  

Aside from that, if todays showing is replicated in SC and less white ST states, what do you see the path being for Pete?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wolves said:

Aside from that, if todays showing is replicated in SC and less white ST states, what do you see the path being for Pete?

Well, for starters, he could simply outlive the others.  I mean, the top two right now in Nevada are 77 and 78.  The average lifespan for American men is 76.  

The easiest path would be for Klobuchar, Steyer, and Warren to drop out before Super Tuesday.  Say Bloomberg knocks Biden out in Super Tuesday.  You're down to Bernie, Bloomberg, Pete.  That's a dream scenario for me.

But even removing that hopeful thinking:  again, NOBODY is likely to get 50% +1 delegates.  That means a contested convention.  In that scenario, you just need Pete to have a competitive delegate count and perhaps be polling best against Trump, to make a very strong case for why he should be the nominee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Every state awards delegates proportionally.  He needs 50% +1 of all delegates.  So far, he hasn't passed 50% in a single state.  He could win every single state and still fall short by 20% or so.  

The way CA is looking currently it's very possible Bernie leads by a few hundred delegates. That's just CA alone. Going to be impossible going into a convention even if he doesnt have enough delegates but continues the path hes been on so far to deny him the nomination.  If they do that they might as well hand Trump re-election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billay said:

The way CA is looking currently it's very possible Bernie leads by a few hundred delegates. That's just CA alone. Going to be impossible going into a convention even if he doesnt have enough delegates but continues the path hes been on so far to deny him the nomination.  If they do that they might as well hand Trump re-election. 

You're confusing impossible with possible.

It is absolutely possible until he reaches 50%.  If he doesn't reach 50%, then he hasn't earned it (and nobody else has).  He's not being denied anything in that scenario -- he's failed to earn it.

They might choose him anyway, if they think he's the best candidate.  But failing to get even half of the Democrat party is not how you become the leader of the Democrat party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billay said:

The way CA is looking currently it's very possible Bernie leads by a few hundred delegates. That's just CA alone. Going to be impossible going into a convention even if he doesnt have enough delegates but continues the path hes been on so far to deny him the nomination.  If they do that they might as well hand Trump re-election. 

I wouldn't say "just hand Trump re-nomination." is necessarily a given. The American electorate is having a much more rising anti-Establishment trend all around. More and more Americans are becoming disillusioned with the policies and ways of doing things that the Establishment of both major parties have relied on for decades. The fact that Donald Trump won at all in 2016 - when he would he would have been utterly unelectable (with a similar platform and campaigning style) as recently as 2000 means you can't write off a Sanders election to Trump if he's nominated in 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You're confusing impossible with possible.

It is absolutely possible until he reaches 50%.  If he doesn't reach 50%, then he hasn't earned it (and nobody else has).  He's not being denied anything in that scenario -- he's failed to earn it.

They might choose him anyway, if they think he's the best candidate.  But failing to get even half of the Democrat party is not how you become the leader of the Democrat party.

You can apparently do it with far less if the party elites don't like the candidate with the most votes.  The anti-Sanders camp is getting desperate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pilight said:

You can apparently do it with far less if the party elites don't like the candidate with the most votes.  The anti-Sanders camp is getting desperate.

I'm simply telling you how the Democratic Primaries work.  They'd work the same if the frontrunner was Pete or Joe or Warren.  

If a candidate wants to win without a contested convention...any candidate...they have to get 50%+1 of the delegates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I wouldn't say "just hand Trump re-nomination." is necessarily a given. The American electorate is having a much more rising anti-Establishment trend all around. More and more Americans are becoming disillusioned with the policies and ways of doing things that the Establishment of both major parties have relied on for decades. The fact that Donald Trump won at all in 2016 - when he would he would have been utterly unelectable (with a similar platform and campaigning style) as recently as 2000 means you can't write off a Sanders election to Trump if he's nominated in 2020.

I think what he's saying that if you want the Democratic electorate to be energized against Trump - and let's be honest, this is probably the most energized the GOP base has ever been - then you can't afford to go against the clear popular vote winner and delegate leader and backstab him to nominate a politician like Biden through dirty politics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wolves said:

I think what he's saying that if you want the Democratic electorate to be energized against Trump - and let's be honest, this is probably the most energized the GOP base has ever been - then you can't afford to go against the clear popular vote winner and delegate leader and backstab him to nominate a politician like Biden through dirty politics. 

Ah. if that was his message, his post didn't make that clear. But no problem. I've proposed poorly worded and hard to discern posts myself. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wolves said:

I think what he's saying that if you want the Democratic electorate to be energized against Trump - and let's be honest, this is probably the most energized the GOP base has ever been - then you can't afford to go against the clear popular vote winner and delegate leader and backstab him to nominate a politician like Biden through dirty politics. 

Except in that scenario, he's failed to energize more than 50% of his own party.  That scenario would be more than 50% of the party saying "I don't know who I want, but I know it's not Bernie."

That's not a position of strength.  He might be chosen anyway!  But if he isn't, it's not because he was robbed, it's because he failed to energize beyond his corner of the market and didn't convince his own party to embrace his proposals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Except in that scenario, he's failed to energize more than 50% of his own party.  That scenario would be more than 50% of the party saying "I don't know who I want, but I know it's not Bernie."

That's not a position of strength.  He might be chosen anyway!  But if he isn't, it's not because he was robbed, it's because he failed to energize beyond his corner of the market and didn't convince his own party to embrace his proposals.

I'm trying to see where you're coming from but I just don't see the point you're trying to make, people who voted for Bernie won't be energized if it is ""stolen"" from them. They didnt vote en mass for Clinton in 2016, who's to say they'll suddenly change this year if it happened again but under more dire circumstances where there was an actual sense of the election being stolen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Except in that scenario, he's failed to energize more than 50% of his own party.  That scenario would be more than 50% of the party saying "I don't know who I want, but I know it's not Bernie."

That's not a position of strength.  He might be chosen anyway!  But if he isn't, it's not because he was robbed, it's because he failed to energize beyond his corner of the market and didn't convince his own party to embrace his proposals.

How do you know for sure that every Democrat who doesn't support Sanders would automatically be "anyone but Sanders," by absolute flip default? That very much sounds like the assumption you're jumping to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wolves said:

I'm trying to see where you're coming from but I just don't see the point you're trying to make, people who voted for Bernie won't be energized if it is ""stolen"" from them. They didnt vote en mass for Clinton in 2016, who's to say they'll suddenly change this year if it happened again but under more dire circumstances where there was an actual sense of the election being stolen.

Here's where I'm coming from:  It's not stolen if it's not his, and it's not his (or anyone else's) if nobody gets to 50%.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Except in that scenario, he's failed to energize more than 50% of his own party.  That scenario would be more than 50% of the party saying "I don't know who I want, but I know it's not Bernie."

That's not a position of strength.  He might be chosen anyway!  But if he isn't, it's not because he was robbed, it's because he failed to energize beyond his corner of the market and didn't convince his own party to embrace his proposals.

I would still to know the source of this unlinked, strangely absolutist and binary, and difficult-to-believe on face value statistic on Sanders support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Except in that scenario, he's failed to energize more than 50% of his own party.  That scenario would be more than 50% of the party saying "I don't know who I want, but I know it's not Bernie."

That's not a position of strength.  He might be chosen anyway!  But if he isn't, it's not because he was robbed, it's because he failed to energize beyond his corner of the market and didn't convince his own party to embrace his proposals.

I'll request, once more (a third time), the source of these dubious statistics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'll request, once more (a third time), the source of these dubious statistics.

What statistics?

We're talking about the rules of the Democrat primary.  To win the nomination prior to the convention, you have to win 50%+1 delegates.  That's not me making something up, that's the actual rules.

If nobody reaches 50%+1 delegates, then we have a contested convention.  Again, this is not debatable -- it's the actual rules.

The only thing being debated here is whether Bernie will 100% be handed the nomination even if he fails to reach 50%+1.  One person in this thread said it's impossible that it would be denied to Bernie.  I have explained that the possibility does exist, and explained my reasoning for believing that it would be possible.

If a candidate fails to get 50%+1, then they have by definition failed to win half of the party.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

What statistics?

We're talking about the rules of the Democrat primary.  To win the nomination prior to the convention, you have to win 50%+1 delegates.  That's not me making something up, that's the actual rules.

If nobody reaches 50%+1 delegates, then we have a contested convention.  Again, this is not debatable -- it's the actual rules.

The only thing being debated here is whether Bernie will 100% be handed the nomination even if he fails to reach 50%+1.  One person in this thread said it's impossible that it would be denied to Bernie.  I have explained that the possibility does exist, and explained my reasoning for believing that it would be possible.

If a candidate fails to get 50%+1, then they have by definition failed to win half of the party.
 

I'm referring to this question about your claims on voting trends.

 

42 minutes ago, Patine said:

I would still to know the source of this unlinked, strangely absolutist and binary, and difficult-to-believe on face value statistic on Sanders support.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...