Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

  • I agree. I oppose Superdelagates

  • I disagree. I support Superdelegates

Results are only viewable after voting.
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Congratulations- you just figured out why it's 90%.

But Bernie did not get media attention. Any Hollywood flack will tell you that negative attention is much better than none.

For proof, just look at the Shitgibbon in the Oval Orifice.
Click to expand...
You realize in the article you posted they shit all over your assertions and state that it's likely the best funded candidates win because they're the better candidate in the first place and so can fundraise better?

No?

Because you're a headline skimming retard.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
You realize in the article you posted they shit all over your assertions and state that it's likely the best funded candidates win because they're the better candidate in the first place and so can fundraise better?

No?

Because you're a headline skimming retard.
Click to expand...
One can disagree with the stated rationale while still seeing the trend.

Obviously that sort of subtlety is beyond you, Stinkydigit.
 
Last edited:
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
It's you guys that are having difficulty with the truth. Chomsky is slipping. He started out with the claim that prior to Sanders you could predict outcomes by campaign funding. That's not true. There is a general relationship between campaign spending and outcomes but his claim of a predictive relationship is not true, especially in a race with lopsided results. Also, his claim that Sanders would have won if not for the shenanigans of the Democratic party doesn't square with the facts.

We can put this one down to more bernie baby whining about not getting having their way.
Click to expand...
what about kansas? they've predicted every winner during primary since forever except one noticeable year- 2016..they were wrong- they chose Sanders and yet Clinton took home the prize..what do you think was different here? can you guess which had more birdseed?

 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
what about kansas? they've predicted every winner during primary since forever except one noticeable year- 2016..they were wrong- they chose Sanders and yet Clinton took home the prize..what do you think was different here? can you guess which had more birdseed?

Click to expand...
exactly
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Lol. OK, so how do you know that?
Click to expand...
Nobody can ever know what somebody else is thinking. I know what Chomsky said. That's all.

I don't use you-tube videos for information. That is because there is little information in what one person says in a couple of minutes. I'm glad for you that what Chomsky said makes you feel all warm and cozy but it isn't a very good way to form an opinion.

Of course, yours was already formed. If I pulled up a you-tube video where the expert said not rigged, would you find that convincing? Certainly not. Because you only believe what you want to hear.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Mr Sanders did get positive coverage; just not much of it.
Click to expand...
Yep, and if we clip out all the negative coverage Clinton got regarding Benghazi, pizzagate, emails, etc., Clinton's positive media coverage during the primary would look a lot like the coverage that Bernie had. Maybe even less.

You cite all these strange an tangential statistics to support your opinion rather than reveal anything. Statistics can be twisted and contorted as you have done without explaining anything. We can play oneupmanship with statistics all day. As I said earlier, unlike you, I don't stop with the statistics, in fact, I don't really need them at all. The real answers lie behind the statistics. Answer this:

You and Pad keep harping on rigged yet neither of you address why, if this is all due to general campaign spending or shenanigans by the DNC, why did only white males vote in large numbers for Bernie? Why wouldn't everybody be affected equally? A whopping large majority of black, Hispanic and women Democratic party voters chose Clinton. Why weren't white male voters affected in similar proportions by your so called corrupt acts? If the issue was solely due to campaign spending or DNC tricks, why was the effect only seen in that group?

What black people who are analysts say is that Bernie didn't convince black voters that he was going to be a good leader on their issues. This makes much more sense than all your complex conspiracy theories.

Edit: I will also add that it's revealing that the three hard core Clinton haters on this site are all rabid misogynists. Interesting little factoid there.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yep, and if we clip out all the negative coverage Clinton got regarding Benghazi, pizzagate, emails, etc., Clinton's positive media coverage during the primary would look a lot like the coverage that Bernie had. Maybe even less.

You cite all these strange an tangential statistics to support your opinion rather than reveal anything. Statistics can be twisted and contorted as you have done without explaining anything. We can play oneupmanship with statistics all day. As I said earlier, unlike you, I don't stop with the statistics, in fact, I don't really need them at all. The real answers lie behind the statistics. Answer this:

You and Pad keep harping on rigged yet neither of you address why, if this is all due to general campaign spending or shenanigans by the DNC, why did only white males vote in large numbers for Bernie? Why wouldn't everybody be affected equally? A whopping large majority of black, Hispanic and women Democratic party voters chose Clinton. Why weren't white male voters affected in similar proportions by your so called corrupt acts? If the issue was solely due to campaign spending or DNC tricks, why was the effect only seen in that group?

What black people who are analysts say is that Bernie didn't convince black voters that he was going to be a good leader on their issues. This makes much more sense than all your complex conspiracy theories.

Edit: I will also add that it's revealing that the three hard core Clinton haters on this site are all rabid misogynists. Interesting little factoid there.
Click to expand...
My citations that you call strange support my perspectives. If you can't see the relevance, maybe that's down too your biases, not mine.

Even negative publicity is better than none.

Want proof? Look at Roy Moore. I'm being he's gonna win, at least in part BECAUSE of all that negative publicity!

Your 'rabid misogynists' claim is yet another attempt to gain support by saying something untrue and wildly off topic. Lame clown sauce that wouldn't stand for a second in any real debate.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
dagwood45431 said:
Yes. You first made the appeal to authority and then expected everyone else to explain why your authority believed what he believed. Illogical madness, fool.
Click to expand...
He believes it, along with the majority of voters, because he's looked at the evidence objectively. Clinton supporters deny it in the face of evidence

If the DNC was supposed to remain neutral, and they didn't, that is rigging the election for the person they favored

If one campaign controls the party apparatus that organizes elections and distributes funds to candidates, that's rigging the election

"But this person said it wasn't rigged, so it wasn't!" doesn't erase the already accepted evidence of rigging as stated above

If Donald Trump bought the RNC the same way Clinton bought the DNC, you would call the Republican primary rigged. You don't with Clinton's control over the DNC because you support Clinton.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
dagwood45431 said:
You really don't understand what Appeal to Authority is, do you?
Click to expand...
My argument isn't appealing to Chomsky's authority. An appeal to authority would be saying Chomsky's argument is correct because Chomsky said it. That's not why Chomsky's argument is correct. His argument is correct based on the verifiable evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top