Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Bernie is winning the nomination race and here's whyFollow

#277 Apr 07 2016 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
As amusing as that may be, the reality is that if no candidate gets a majority of pledged delegates by convention day, and if the delegates at the convention decide they don't like either Trump or Cruz, and can't get a majority to support either candidate in later voting rounds, that means they've got to start looking at other people.
The point is that none of them are electable in a year that was most beneficial to them. Considering the demographic, it's simply irresponsible to believe that Trump supporters are going to support, in significant numbers anyway, anyone picked by a brokered convention. Being able to say you're more delegate rich than Mittens is a great moral victory story you can tell your kids while watching the inaugeration on tv in January. "I got shoved to the front of the pack and still lost" also doesn't look particularly great on a resume.
gbaji wrote:
as much as I'm totally not a Cruz fan by any means
Yeah yeah, not until July.
gbaji wrote:
His biggest negative is that he's seen as a bit (quite a bit!) too conservative, and fails to compromise when it's needed.
I'd say people who should be his allies saying they wouldn't care if he were murdered in front of them, and that he's crazy, that he hasn't learned things that most kindergartners have, he's untrustworthy, he can't win ... I just picked out a couple of the (R)s from this article. Being "too conservative" seems to be the least of his problems.
gbaji wrote:
Does your conscience bother you?
I do spend a lot of time trying to convince people of how logical I am by telling them how logical I am to distract from an obvious lack of actual substance so must be feeling a little guilty.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#278 Apr 07 2016 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
This is not only a retarded argument, but it is also probably one of the most retarded ways of having it.

Strong/weak candidates are all relative to the field so arguing it in a vacuum is bizzare, and wrapped up in so much partisanship that its meaningless anyway.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#279 Apr 07 2016 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, yeah, I said that before. "Weak" is meaningless without context and even if we accepted "She should be winning by twenty times her lead! Weak!" as an argument, it doesn't say anything about what "weak" represents.

Clinton is leading in pledged delegates, in raw votes and in voter enthusiasm. She has the support of her party and, in a general election will have the support of Democratic voters. She is polling above the two GOP front-runners in a general election. Hell, she even manages to poll as more likable than either GOP front-runner when one of her weak spots is likability. So what does "weak" even mean? I've tried asking this but all we get is "Not winning by enough delegates! Weak!" It's like talking to Donald Trump Smiley: laugh

Without actual context and definition, it's just masturbation on Gbaji's part to keep chanting it and demanding that we all admit it. "Hey, don't date that guy -- he's weak." How? He's not socially assertive? He can't shake a nicotine addiction? He can't move the dining room table by himself or win a bar fight? Because those are all valid uses of the word but have dramatically different consequences.

Edited, Apr 7th 2016 8:58am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#280 Apr 07 2016 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Well, it's not like he can exactly expound upon the strengths of the GOP candidates.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#281 Apr 07 2016 at 8:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
I'd say people who should be his allies saying they wouldn't care if he were murdered in front of them, and that he's crazy, that he hasn't learned things that most kindergartners have, he's untrustworthy, he can't win ... I just picked out a couple of the (R)s from this article.

Cruz has managed to pick up a total of three endorsements from his fellow Senators despite being in an essentially two-person race against Trump. And 66% of those endorsements are in the form of "I don't like Cruz or think he's a good pick but Trump is even worse, I guess."
Senator Jim Risch wrote:
Obviously, Kasich is so far behind that it’s impossible really for him to get the numbers, so by process of elimination that gets you to Ted Cruz. At this point, there’s no choice
Senator Lindsey Graham wrote:
I think he's the best alternative to beat Donald Trump. I'm going to help Ted in any way I can… He's certainly not my preference, but he's a reliable Republican, conservative, which I've had many differences with. John Kasich is the most viable general election candidate. I just don't see how John gets through the primary.

Ringing endorsements!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#282 Apr 07 2016 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Heh, Graham also says that the difference between Trump and Cruz is taking poison and being shot, and he's the one talking about how no one would care if Cruz were murdered.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#283 Apr 07 2016 at 10:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
There's something very amusing about politicians being forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#284 Apr 07 2016 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I think Lindsey wrote a fanfic about Cruz stalking and killing Trump, but then getting caught with the hog on his deck, so to speak. He's a weird guy.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#285 Apr 07 2016 at 11:55 AM Rating: Decent
I derive no small amount of pleasure from the fact that the Republicans feeding abject hatred for Obama the last 8 (9) years has caused a storm of vitriolic ignorance they cannot control. The Republican Party is like a mad scientist being killed by it's own creation. A poetic end.
#286 Apr 08 2016 at 7:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gallup wrote:
Despite the verbal jousting going on between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as they travel in and around New York and Pennsylvania looking to sew up votes for those two states' forthcoming primaries, Democrats in general are very positive about both of their candidates. Republicans are less so.

Seven in 10 Democrats have a positive view of each of their party's two contenders. Clinton has a little more negative baggage, with a 26% unfavorable rating compared with Sanders' 13%. Sanders has a somewhat higher percentage responding "Never heard of/Don't have an opinion." But they are both well-liked.

This is significantly different from the Republican side, where the percentage of Republicans who like Donald Trump is 55% and those who like Ted Cruz is 52%. Plus, Trump's unfavorable rating among Republicans is 40%, while Cruz's is almost as high at 38%.

This results in a big gulf between how the Democratic candidates and the Republican candidates are seen by their party faithful. If we net out the favorable and unfavorable ratings, we find Sanders with a +58, Clinton with a +44, Trump with a +15 and Cruz with a +14.
[...]
Additional analysis conducted using separate data shows that Democrats are more likely than Republicans -- especially Trump supporters -- to say they would vote for the "other" candidate should their preferred candidate lose the nomination.

Further, Republican enthusiasm has been waning over the past three months, and Republicans have become less likely to say the election process is working the way it should.

All of this doesn't bode well for Republicans in the general election.
Weak Clinton! Sad! Doomed!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#287 Apr 08 2016 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Any general election/independent/undecided net favorability numbers?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#288 Apr 08 2016 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
If the last couple of elections is any indicator, then most independents still lean a certain direction and end up voting that way.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#289 Apr 08 2016 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Any general election/independent/undecided net favorability numbers?

Nothing I saw (not that I looked hard) specifically for independent/undecideds. Aggregate general (vs party only) population polling looks like...
Clinton: 40-55 (Fav-Unfav) (-15)
Sanders: 49-42 (+7)
Trump: 30-64 (-34)
Cruz: 33-56 (-23)

Clinton and Trump are probably pretty baked in since you only have 5% "unsure" for each. Cruz is in a lousy spot since he's already at 56% unfavorable with another 11% unsure and it's unlikely that every "unsure" guy is going to decide they actually like Cruz. Sanders isn't especially surprising since he has yet to be hit by an actual concerted negative campaign.

Edited, Apr 8th 2016 10:12am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#290 Apr 08 2016 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sanders isn't especially surprising since he has yet to be hit by an actual concerted negative campaign.
It's always reassuring to know that while I might not hate someone now, there'll be plenty of reasons to do so in the future.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#291 Apr 08 2016 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If the last couple of elections is any indicator, then most independents still lean a certain direction and end up voting that way. staying home and eating nachos.
Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#292 Apr 08 2016 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Given that you refused to even acknowledge that she's under performed the predictions, we haven't gotten to the part where we can make that sort of assessment, can we?

You've yet to present the predictions so we can judge them. You've linked to one article about Iowa and... well, that's it.


The article I linked to wasn't just "about Iowa". It made the prediction about what would happen if Clinton won Iowa (which she did). Said prediction is not remotely close to what has actually happened.

Quote:
You've done a lot of insisting that she's missed predictions though. Not so great on the "presenting predictions" part.


Well. When I link to an article that makes a prediction, and the only thing you get from it is that it's "about Iowa" (it wasn't), the problem does not lie with me presenting predictions, but you apparently putting blinders in front of your eyes so as to not read them.

Quote:
You've claimed that the predictions would show she had it sewn up by early March where "sewn up" means either (a) 50%+ of the delegates available or (b) enough delegates to force every other opponent out of the race. Using that criteria, start presenting some of these predictions. Preferably from last fall at the earliest (since people casting bones in March 2015 or whatever before people joined the race isn't really meaningful). Super bonus points if it's an actual polling or political analyst (Nate Silver, Sam Wang, Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, Stuart Rothenberg, etc) and not some random columnist filling inches.


Um... In addition to the article I linked earlier, how about this one. Now, to be fair, Nate doesn't actually say that Bernie will drop out of the race by early March, but if one loses every single race after Iowa and New Hampshire (as he predicts could happen due to his analysis of the demographic picture), one will typically lose financial support by early March and drop out. The fact that this has not happened, and Sanders is in fact out funding Clinton right now, shows just how incredibly different the primary reality is from what was predicted.

Sanders did win NH (no surprise), but lost (narrowly) Iowa. Despite this, he still managed to stay in the race, and has gone on to gain ground on Clinton since then. Doesn't mean he's going to win the nomination, but as I've been saying all along, this is not remotely what anyone expected would happen.


You're also still getting too caught up on the language, and missing the larger point. The effect of having a nomination "sewn up" is that one can stop spending time and money and effort continuing to campaign for the nomination, and focus on the general. Clinton still cannot afford to do that. We can sit here and quibble about what constitutes having "sewn up" a nomination all day long, and play dueling quotes if we want, but at the end of the day, Clinton is still having to fight to win the nomination. Isn't that ultimately all that matters?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Apr 08 2016 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Now, to be fair, Nate doesn't actually say that Bernie will drop out of the race by early March, but if one loses every single race after Iowa and New Hampshire (as he predicts could happen due to his analysis of the demographic picture), one will typically lose financial support by early March and drop out.

To be fair to who? You? Because that article doesn't say that Clinton will win by March as you insist everyone was saying. Silver also doesn't talk about financial support. He just points out some challenges that Sanders may face (as of July 2015 when very little state polling existed).

And your previous article again makes no suggestion that Clinton would win by March. It says that, if Sanders wins in Iowa, media coverage would remain intense through February/March at least. And that the contest could run through June but that Clinton would most likely win overall.

Again, show me all these predictions that Clinton would win by March. Stop whining and crying that I'm not looking at this picture or that or whatever spin you're trying to use to get out of it and just back up your claim already. Or just admit that you were wrong and this was never actually the prediction. Put up or shut up.

Edited, Apr 8th 2016 9:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#294 Apr 08 2016 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're also still getting too caught up on the language, and missing the larger point. The effect of having a nomination "sewn up" is that one can stop spending time and money and effort continuing to campaign for the nomination, and focus on the general. Clinton still cannot afford to do that. We can sit here and quibble about what constitutes having "sewn up" a nomination all day long, and play dueling quotes if we want, but at the end of the day, Clinton is still having to fight to win the nomination. Isn't that ultimately all that matters?

No, your point was that Clinton was "weak" as evidenced by her not leading by six times her current lead since everyone predicted that she would have the race over by March. That you need to start hedging that and trying to draw away from a point you obviously have no chance of supporting isn't really a surprise but it was in fact the point you made repeatedly. And then demanded that people acknowledge was true.

We don't need to play "dueling quotes" -- you have no quotes. You have no evidence. You are just (as in prior elections) making up imaginary lines of where the Democratic candidate "should" be and then gloating that they didn't meet your ass-pulled metrics.
You previously wrote:
Well, and this is the kinda frustrating part, my argument is that she's weak. One part of the support for my argument is that she's under performing the predictions (there are others, but right now we're examining that one)

Right, remember? We're examining this support for your argument. It's not playing "dueling quotes" to ask you to back up your supposed "support" for your own argument... weel, until you realize you have no actual predictions and have to start in about how the predictions aren't really important so let's talk about something else instead.

Face it, you were just wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#295 Apr 08 2016 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As amusing as that may be, the reality is that if no candidate gets a majority of pledged delegates by convention day, and if the delegates at the convention decide they don't like either Trump or Cruz, and can't get a majority to support either candidate in later voting rounds, that means they've got to start looking at other people.
The point is that none of them are electable in a year that was most beneficial to them. Considering the demographic, it's simply irresponsible to believe that Trump supporters are going to support, in significant numbers anyway, anyone picked by a brokered convention.


Including Trump? You do get that if it's an open primary (or contested, the term "brokered" would be better applied to a Dem convention if the margin of pledged delegates is <= to the number of super delegates), then Trump also would depend on pledged delegates changing their vote to him in order to win, right? Everyone is in the same boat there, and no one's supporters are going to be super happy. Here's the thing though, Trumps negatives are the highest of any Republican in the race. So it stands to reason that the GOP will lose more actual general election voters if he's granted the nomination via open delegate voting at the convention then if someone else is.

You also have to remember that Trump's strategy is to take advantage of the top heavy delegate awarding system the GOP uses to garner sub 40% voter support into a nomination by having enough pledged delegates to avoid any sort of open vote for a candidate. Because in an open vote, he'll lose. He knows this. Everyone knows this. It's also why he's spending zero effort trying to help place specific people in delegate seats. He can't win that way. He knows that there's no way he can get enough actual Trump supporters to take those delegate seats to get even remotely close to a majority (or even a strong minority). He must have them forced to vote for him in the convention via the pledge system. Once released from that pledge, they'll move to any other candidate but him.

So one can argue (I am arguing this in fact) that Trump's actual support among voters is smaller than his relative delegate count, while other candidate's voter support is higher (much higher in some cases). Which is why you can't just assume that the best choice is to give it to the guy who got the most pledged delegates. That number is intentionally off balance in order to maximize the odds of a single clear winner. But in the case where a clear winner does not appear, you can't use it as a means of determining who is actually most supported among party voters, and thus would be the best choice. Ultimately, once you reach that point, it's not about delegate count at all, but who the delegates think would have the best chance of unifying the party (or at least retaining the most voter support).


And that's not going to be Trump. It might not be Cruz. Hence my point about looking elsewhere. You can also make the point that if Cruz is chosen over Trump, it'll look like it's just plain anti-Trump. Same deal if in reverse Trump is chosen over Cruz. Oddly, if you pick neither of them, neither of them will be as upset about it. When you fight a hard and dirty battle against someone, it's not uncommon to adopt the idea that "even if I lose, I don't want him to win" to come to the forefront, and picking someone other than either of them might actually result in the best outcome. They can both save face, and choose to support whomever the delegates chose, because neither one "lost" to the other. Seems strange, but it's really not.

Quote:
Being able to say you're more delegate rich than Mittens...


There's no "more" here though. That would suggest a comparison to someone who had a number of delegates greater than zero, and had actually participated in the process. What you'd say is that you ran in the campaign, and won delegates. Something that Mitt nor Ryan did. That's a pretty huge distinction.

Obviously, we're all just speculating here, but I find the narrative about "what happens if Trump loses the nomination despite having the most delegates" to be pretty one sided. If Trump fails to win enough pledged delegates, then losing the nomination is exactly what *should* happen, because his pledged count isn't the result of broad popular appeal among the party voters. Similarly, Cruz isn't terribly popular and is only there because he's the guy voters had to support in order to prevent Trump from getting a majority of pledged delegates and effectively stealing the nomination. It's not remotely out of the realm of possibility (even probability) that if it comes to open delegate voting that neither of them will win. But I don't know if the delegates would go so far as to support a candidate who never ran at all. Hence my suggestion that they could settle on either Rubio or Kasich. I'd certainly assume they'd at least try to go that route before going to someone totally outside the field.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#296 Apr 08 2016 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, we're all just speculating here, but I find the narrative about "what happens if Trump loses the nomination despite having the most delegates" to be pretty one sided. If Trump fails to win enough pledged delegates, then losing the nomination is exactly what *should* happen, because his pledged count isn't the result of broad popular appeal among the party voters. Similarly, Cruz isn't terribly popular and is only there because he's the guy voters had to support in order to prevent Trump from getting a majority of pledged delegates and effectively stealing the nomination. It's not remotely out of the realm of possibility (even probability) that if it comes to open delegate voting that neither of them will win. But I don't know if the delegates would go so far as to support a candidate who never ran at all. Hence my suggestion that they could settle on either Rubio or Kasich. I'd certainly assume they'd at least try to go that route before going to someone totally outside the field.

Rubio and Kasich are both tainted with having run and utterly failed at it. Saying that Trump/Cruz doesn't "deserve" it but that Rubio or Kasich does is ridiculous.

If it's not Trump or Cruz, it'll be someone who just never ran rather than a 2016 primary loser. Honestly, whoever that might be will be running from such a crippled start that they'll basically be a sacrificial lamb to try and preserve some down ballot candidates and try to fight to keep the Senate. There's really zero good options for the Republicans this summer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#297 Apr 08 2016 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're also still getting too caught up on the language, and missing the larger point. The effect of having a nomination "sewn up" is that one can stop spending time and money and effort continuing to campaign for the nomination, and focus on the general. Clinton still cannot afford to do that. We can sit here and quibble about what constitutes having "sewn up" a nomination all day long, and play dueling quotes if we want, but at the end of the day, Clinton is still having to fight to win the nomination. Isn't that ultimately all that matters?

No, your point was that Clinton was "weak" as evidenced by her not leading by six times her current lead since everyone predicted that she would have the race over by March.


I have provided several arguments in support of my claim that Clinton is a weak candidate. Her high negatives. The risk of pending indictment. And yes, her relatively poor performance both in polls leading up to the primary and the primary results themselves.

You keep forgetting that she's running against Bernie Sanders. Not Obama. Not Warren. Not even Biden. Sanders. She should be doing far better than she is. And yes, everyone predicted that she'd do far better than she is. No amount of tap dancing around and eternally moving the goalposts of proof changes that. There's no point in me spending time and effort finding more sources for my claim, since you've steadfastly insisted on ignoring those which I have already provided.


Quote:
We don't need to play "dueling quotes" -- you have no quotes. You have no evidence.


Except for the two sources I linked and quoted, neither of which you have responded to.

Quote:
Right, remember? We're examining this support for your argument.


Except you're not. You have not even acknowledged the sources I have linked and the quotes I've made from them. You are instead choosing to cherry pick quotes from me and then demand some kind of impossible standard for me to meet to support said quotes, all while conveniently ignoring the big picture.

Quote:
It's not playing "dueling quotes" to ask you to back up your supposed "support" for your own argument...


When you ignore the support I've provided and instead fall back on "But back in post number XXX you said <this>, and that means <that>, so where's your proof!!!? Oh. And it must be in the form of a haiku, and only be written by <list of people> to count!", it's hard for me to take your responses seriously. You've obviously decided already that nothing I do or say constitutes support for my claim, so what's the point?

I still rest on my initial statement that Clinton is a weak candidate. There's a host of evidence for this. You're free to ignore that evidence if it makes you feel better or something though.


____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#298 Apr 08 2016 at 9:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Rubio and Kasich are both tainted with having run and utterly failed at it. Saying that Trump/Cruz doesn't "deserve" it but that Rubio or Kasich does is ridiculous.


It's not about who "deserves it" though. It's about who the delegates can settle on and support. And that's going to be a process that requires taking several factors into account. Who they think has the best chance of winning is one. Who will divide or unite the most voters is another. How their choice will be viewed by the party and the public is yet another. It's not unreasonable to think that they might not want either Trump or Cruz, but also not want to be seen as handing the nomination to someone who didn't bother to run at all. And in that calculus, someone like Rubio or Kasich becomes a pretty decent middle ground compromise.

Quote:
If it's not Trump or Cruz, it'll be someone who just never ran rather than a 2016 primary loser.


Maybe. Maybe not. I just suspect that at least part of their decision will be based on which selection will generate the least outrage. Obviously, a lot can change between now and the convention, but the prevailing opinion right now is that parachuting a nominee into the convention (like Romney or Ryan) would be very negatively received. I don't think it's strange to suggest that they will at least attempt to settle on someone who did win and did bring delegates to the convention before they jump outside the entire primary process itself for a potential nominee.

Oh. And I'll also point that in terms of pledged delegates, it's all or nothing. Everyone who runs but fails to get 1237 pledged delegates is a "primary loser". Again, this is because of the way the system works. You either get that many, or you don't. This notion that coming "close" matters is quaint, but not remotely correct. Who the delegates support, once freed from their pledges, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the pledged delegate count itself. Those are two completely different things. The only consideration that delegate count might have is purely about appearances. But, as I've pointed out already, assuming both Cruz and Trump are "close but not close enough", you're likely to hurt the party more by picking one of them over the other, than picking someone else entirely. And once you've made that decision, the whole "pick someone who ran over someone who didn't" still does have merit from a PR point of view.

In that context, they aren't seen as losers, but "3rd and 4th place, with 1st and 2nd place disqualified". So looking at them next is quite reasonable to most people.

Quote:
Honestly, whoever that might be will be running from such a crippled start that they'll basically be a sacrificial lamb to try and preserve some down ballot candidates and try to fight to keep the Senate. There's really zero good options for the Republicans this summer.


Which will, at worst, make things a bit more even for the Democrats. Give them a fighting chance at least.

Edited, Apr 8th 2016 8:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#299 Apr 08 2016 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
She should be doing far better than she is. And yes, everyone predicted that she'd do far better than she is. No amount of tap dancing around and eternally moving the goalposts of proof changes that. There's no point in me spending time and effort finding more sources for my claim, since you've steadfastly insisted on ignoring those which I have already provided.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
Quote:
Except for the two sources I linked and quoted, neither of which you have responded to.

Sure I have. I noted that neither states what you claimed everyone predicted: That everyone said the race would be over by March. You might as well be citing a Chinese takeout menu and then pouting that I didn't "respond" to it.
Quote:
Except you're not. You have not even acknowledged the sources I have linked and the quotes I've made from them.

Is your new plan to avoid admitting that you were completely wrong to just not read the thread any more? This is getting sad, even for your usual level of denial that anyone is responding to you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#300 Apr 08 2016 at 10:58 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
If Trump fails to win enough pledged delegates, then losing the nomination is exactly what *should* happen, because his pledged count isn't the result of broad popular appeal among the party voters.
If Trump fails to win enough pledged delegates, then losing the nomination is exactly what should happen to everyone because their pledged counts are even more abysmal (some far more so) than Trump's. You want to argue that Trump shouldn't get the nomination because he failed to meet a certain benchmark, then you also have to make the argument for everyone else as well. Your hedging for a bunch of factually weak candidates is a bit amusing at least.
gbaji wrote:
Similarly, Cruz isn't terribly popular
Like how a cinder block isn't terribly good at floating.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#301 Apr 08 2016 at 11:05 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Like how a cinder block isn't terribly good at floating.
My research tells that that in order for a rock to float it must be very small.

Or a duck.

I forget which.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 352 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (352)