So what? The votes were already cast. It's absurd to claim that any information released after the fact could change the outcome. It's obvious that there was no clear winner in Iowa although there were obvious losers.
Already explained, and not a difficult concept to grasp:
It's possible he would have lost the primary anyhow, but pre-announcing any kind of 'winner' is just trash, it taints decision making. Literally no winners should be announced for any state prior to all votes being collected.So the knowledge that the outcome was preordained suppressed only Sanders' turnout? Why wouldn't it suppress both? Also, why was he always losing in the polling as well? Did the superdelegates make people not want to tell pollsters they preferred him too? lol.
It's frankly just funny at this point watching you guys spin up ludicrous theories as to why Sanders didn't lose because fewer Democrats wanted him to be the nominee. Surely it must be anything other than he lost because millions and millions more people wanted Clinton to win.
So the knowledge that the outcome was preordained suppressed only Sanders' turnout? Why wouldn't it suppress both? Also, why was he always losing in the polling as well? Did the superdelegates make people not want to tell pollsters they preferred him too? lol.
It's frankly just funny at this point watching you guys spin up ludicrous theories as to why Sanders didn't lose because fewer Democrats wanted him to be the nominee. Surely it must be anything other than he lost because millions and millions more people wanted Clinton to win.
It's possible he would have lost the primary anyhow, but pre-announcing any kind of 'winner' is just trash, it taints decision making. Literally no winners should be announced for any state prior to all votes being collected.
It's funny how the superdelegates coming out early for Clinton in 2008 didn't stop Obama.The rules were created so that the party establishment could override the voters. The superdelegates came out in support of Clinton early and that depressed turnout in the rest of the primary since it created a mountain that was essentially impossible for Sanders to climb. At this point anyone that pretends to not understand this is not arguing in good faith.
So what? The votes were already cast. It's absurd to claim that any information released after the fact could change the outcome. It's obvious that there was no clear winner in Iowa although there were obvious losers.
I'd argue with this, there's a difference between not thinking critically and willfully ignorant sycophant. Now we could argue which one @fskimospy falls into I guess, but I'd consider them to be in the former, not the latter.People like fskimospy are really no better than Trump supporters.
Indeed, Obama was a stronger candidate by quite a bit. You cannot argue that in a tight race, it can affect the outcome though.It's funny how the superdelegates coming out early for Clinton in 2008 didn't stop Obama.
I didn't watch Tulsi on Hannity, and don't believe I ever commented on it. But from my understanding she was agreeing with him on many point. Wallace, however, interviewed candidates, not trying to get them to undermine other democrats.That's not the point. It's the content of the interview.
It's possible he would have lost the primary anyhow, but pre-announcing any kind of 'winner' is just trash, it taints decision making. Literally no winners should be announced for any state prior to all votes being collected.
What I mean is, primaries should be a nation-wide vote, followed by nation-wide announcement, nothing beyond 3rd party polling permitted beforehand. No states announcing winners in their realm before all primary votes are cast.I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about.
I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about.
Just going to sit there like a fucking imbecile and pretend that the energy of a winning campaign doesn't matter, that people don't make up their minds at that last minute, favor stronger candidates, or are more likely to vote if they believe their preferred candidate is winning.
Like I said it’s just funny now how the reason why Bernie lost the primary by millions and was losing in every poll was because of every reason other than that fewer people wanted him to win, haha.
What I mean is, primaries should be a nation-wide vote, followed by nation-wide announcement, nothing beyond 3rd party polling permitted beforehand. No states announcing winners in their realm before all primary votes are cast.
That would be great. Unfortunately, it's another of the long list of things that would fairly obviously improve things but will never happen.What I mean is, primaries should be a nation-wide vote, followed by nation-wide announcement, nothing beyond 3rd party polling permitted beforehand. No states announcing winners in their realm before all primary votes are cast.
And that's fine, I have no issue with the winner being the winner, I just take issue with anything interfering with an individual's choice in the matter, to include things that could easily be argued as social engineering or mental manipulation.While I would support a national primary the evidence strongly suggests Clinton would have won that handily too.
The rules were created so that the party establishment could override the voters. The superdelegates came out in support of Clinton early and that depressed turnout in the rest of the primary since it created a mountain that was essentially impossible for Sanders to climb. At this point anyone that pretends to not understand this is not arguing in good faith.
On June 6, both the Associated Press and NBC News reported that Clinton had sufficient support from pledged and unpledged delegates to become the presumptive Democratic nominee.[125] Clinton's campaign seemed reluctant to accept the mantle of "presumptive nominee" before all the voting was concluded,[126] while Sanders' campaign stated it would continue to run and accused the media of a "rush to judgement."[127] Six states held their primaries on June 7. Clinton won in California, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota. Sanders won Montana and North Dakota, the latter being the only caucus contest held on that day.[128] Clinton finally declared victory on the evening of June 7, as the results ensured that she had won a majority of the pledged delegates and the popular vote.
I actually voted for Bernie as a protest to how the entire party fell behind Hillary the second she announced, I'm sure others did too. Do you have any real data to show Bernie lost solely because people guessed at how the super delegates would vote? Remembering, not a single on had cast a vote during the primaries.It's possible he would have lost the primary anyhow, but pre-announcing any kind of 'winner' is just trash, it taints decision making. Literally no winners should be announced for any state prior to all votes being collected.
Just straight up lying about easily researched facts is definitely a form of gaslighting. Guy is basically no different than a Trump supporter.
Sanders ties Clinton in national poll
Majorities gave the Vermont senator higher marks for fighting hard for the middle class.www.politico.com
So you admit, Bernie lost because he wasn't a strong enough candidate?Indeed, Obama was a stronger candidate by quite a bit. You cannot argue that in a tight race, it can affect the outcome though.
Just straight up lying about easily researched facts is definitely a form of gaslighting. Guy is basically no different than a Trump supporter.
Sanders ties Clinton in national poll
Majorities gave the Vermont senator higher marks for fighting hard for the middle class.www.politico.com
Please document the alleged "depressed turnout". Otherwise it's just a contrived argument. You're also engaging in revisionist history.
2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
None of the superdelegate support expressed for Hillary up to that point was official in any way. It seems highly unlikely that they would have tipped the nom to Clinton had Sanders won the most pledged delegates. The contention is ridiculous. Which won't stop you from making it, obviously.
There is no point at which Clinton trailed Sanders in the RCP polling average.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominationwww.realclearpolitics.com
Jesus Christ dude, stop digging. You sound insane.