Catchy tune from 2004. Written by someone who can see into the future I guess.
Many cameo's from the current POTUS 2016 roster including Trump, Bloomberg, Jeb.
Rand Paul
Christie
Trump
Hilary
Bernie
Carson
Cruz
Rubio
Bush
Kasich
Catchy tune from 2004. Written by someone who can see into the future I guess.
Many cameo's from the current POTUS 2016 roster including Trump, Bloomberg, Jeb.
Cruz shouting Spanish at the Robot last night
That was my favorite moment, along with Trump using the phrase 'top-top'. Jamie Gold for Secretary of Agriculture, you heard it here first!Originally Posted by drufdajewgod
Would love to see Bernie go independent and crater Hilldog. After all this is said and done leading up to the nomination, I just see Bern getting more popular, winning States and still losing in delegates. Eventually the party will have to face that their particular system is sfrigged, and the Bernster is all about standing against the system.
someone find me a betting line for trump declaring as an independent.
Such drama this year.
People have had enough Bush.
At the last Republican convention, they pretended that the Bush's (George Bush Sr and George W Bush) were never in office.
Jeb Bush is a nice guy but as they say "nice guys finish last".
The approval rating for Congress is 9%.
They can't get any shit accomplished.
If Donald Trump becomes President, he will embarrass the crap out of Congress and he will torture them until they submit to his will.
Trump is the President that they deserve.
My take on it, being a Floridian for some time under Jeb!'s rule, is that he is the more competent, intelligent and most serious candidate... and he should have been President instead of his brother. But his brother fucked it up for anyone else. Personally I don't like the hereditary dyanastic (read: King) elements of our present political choices on either side. It's totally fucked up that people get elected on name recognition alone, but they do.
lol, prescient as fuck:Would love to see Bernie go independent and crater Hilldog. After all this is said and done leading up to the nomination, I just see Bern getting more popular, winning States and still losing in delegates. Eventually the party will have to face that their particular system is sfrigged, and the Bernster is all about standing against the system.
Such drama this year.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...mocrats-219286
Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates
Outraged by the delegate deficit Sanders faces even after his New Hampshire win, the senator's backers are taking action.
Bernie Sanders lost by a hair in Iowa and won by a landslide in New Hampshire. Yet Hillary Clinton has amassed an enormous 350-delegate advantage over the Vermont senator after just two states.
Outraged by that disconnect – which is fueled by Clinton’s huge advantage with Democratic superdelegates, who are not bound by voting results – Sanders supporters are fighting back.
Pro-Sanders threads on Reddit have been burning up with calls for action, with some supporters even reaching out to superdelegates (who are typically Democratic governors, members of Congress, and top state and national party leaders) to lobby them on the Vermont senator’s behalf. Progressive groups are also taking a stand: There are currently two petition campaigns designed to urge superdelegates to reflect the popular vote, rather than the sentiment of party elites.
In one of them, MoveOn.org activists are targeting undecided and committed Hillary Clinton superdelegates with a clear message: wait until all the votes are counted before throwing support behind a candidate.
The effort, which will begin this week after MoveOn.org polls its supporters to pick which superdelegates to petition first, comes amid growing criticism from Sanders supporters who complain that the game is rigged in the former secretary of state's favor.
As of Sunday, the petition had 112,107 signatures with a goal of 125,000 signatures.
"The next big thing will be this wave of petitions targeting individual superdelegates," said MoveOn Washington Director Ben Wikler. "Asking individual members of Congress and governors and other superdelegates to individually make a pledge to support the will of the voters when it comes time to count their votes."
A second petition by three progressive groups asks superdelegates to "announce that in the event of a close race, you’ll align yourself with regular voters - not party elites." That petition, which grew by 10,000 signatures between Friday and Sunday, had 171,010 signatures Sunday, with a stated goal of 175,000.
Clinton picks up Florida, Texas newspaper endorsements
By Nick Gass
"[The] idea is if you're a super delegate, we want to make sure that you understand that the grassroots base of the Democratic party wants you to support the will of the party electorate,” said Wikler. “So a lot of super delegates are party officials, they're governors, mayor of DC, senators, members of Congress. And the other superdelegates are party leaders, people who have been involved in the Democratic National Committee and people who have been really involved in party affairs and all of them should care about making sure that the Democratic nominee is the person who has energy and passion of the Democratic base behind them."
Ana Cuprill, a Wyoming superdelegate pledged to Clinton, said she heard from several Sanders supporters in recent days.
"There's been a handful of people who have been concerned about that," Cuprill said. "They think it's an endorsement from the party itself, which it's not."
Cuprill, the Wyoming Democratic party chair, said she suspected the real point of the petitions is to "spin" to the DNC that "the party is broken," and to affix blame if Sanders doesn't win.
"I just don't really see that as an issue," Cuprill said, of the current superdelegate process.
Bill Hyers, a top strategist for former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's presidential campaign, said in an email he doubted the petitions would make a difference.
"I will tell you if Bernie does have the majority of the delegates by election going into the convention and the superdelegates tried to reverse that, it would be absolutely awful for the Democratic party and all holy hell would break loose," Hyers said. "I don’t really see that happening, but that is why I largely think superdelegate counts are absolutely pointless right now. The candidates just need to go out and win some states."
While the Sanders campaign has an operative in charge of winning over superdelegates -- Nick Carter, the campaign's political outreach director – it’s not yet making a full-throated push to win either undecided superdelegates, or superdelegates committed to Clinton.
"We're going to hear from them in a couple more states and then many states after. And once the sort of verdict begins to come in, from our perspective that's the time to make our case to the superdelegates," said Tad Devine, the campaign's top strategist. "Now many of them have already expressed a preference for Secretary Clinton. I think that's understandable but they also, given the design of the rules, are free to change their mind up until they're standing on the floor of the convention and are about to vote."
The Sanders campaign is banking on a similar scenario to 2008, when Clinton also built up an early lead among superdelegates. But as Obama won more caucuses and primaries, previously uncommitted superdelegates came into his camp, and he even earned some defections from Clinton.
Sanders explained his thinking on CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday.
“I think if we continue to do well around the country and if superdelegates - whose main interest in life is to make sure that we do not have a Republican in the White House - if they understand that I am the candidate and I believe that I am who is best suited to defeat the Republican nominee I think they will start coming over to us,” he said, noting that he had just met with a few superdelegates Saturday evening.
For the national party, the issue is a minefield -- and officials take care not to offend either the campaigns or the grass roots. When asked Friday on CNN what she tells voters who view the delegate process as ‘rigged’ on Clinton’s behalf, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave a roundabout answer.
Sanders criticism grows pointed at black community forum
By Edward-Isaac Dovere
"Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire," she said. "The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.
"Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."
The Clinton campaign is also careful to direct the discussion away from superdelegates, and steer it towards its pursuit of pledged delegates.
“We are proud of the strong support we have from elected leaders, Democratic Party officials, grassroots activists and volunteers all across this country who are helping Hillary Clinton earn the nomination,” Clinton campaign senior spokesman Jesse Ferguson said in response to questions about the petitions.
Im trying to think of a bigger pile of bullshit nonsense than "super delegates" but im unable to do so... what a fucking joke
In February of 2016, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz's response was, "Super delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists." This clarification was hailed by Clinton supporters as a wise policy to maintain steady, experienced governance, and derided by Sanders supporters as the establishment thwarting the will of the people.
20% of Dem delegates are "super delegates" party insiders not bound by the popular vote in their state. This craziness started after the 1968 elections, that must not have gone the way party leaders liked. So how does this impact a "grass route" guy like the wacko from Vermont? He crushed Hillary by 22%, yet may loose the state.
Since you only need 50.1% of the total delegates, locking up 80% of super delegates leaves her only needing about 35% of the popular vote in Dem primaries.
the Vermont senator won the Granite State primary in a rout over Hillary Clinton, earning 15 delegates to Clinton's 9. But New Hampshire has eight additional "super delegates," and six of them back Clinton. The other two haven't declared a preference. So at the moment, Sanders and Clinton both have 15 total delegates, and it's possible that the former secretary of state could ultimately pull ahead — in a state she lost, 60 percent to 38 percent.
The republicans have different rules, and shouldn't impact the nominee. roughly 6% are "un pledged delegates" which generally follow the popular vote of the state. The Democrats will catch shit over this, but will likely shift only a few super delegate votes, not enough to give Sanders the win in a close race.
Is there any chance trump doesn't win in SC? I noticed hes -600 in SC on bovada. Is this good odds?
Trump appears to be -900 or worse everywhere except bovada
Last edited by SetofKs; 02-15-2016 at 05:38 AM.
Democracy is great, except when the mob mentality supports a demogogue. I'm not saying Bernie Sanders is one, but the superdelegates are meant to keep the party from nominating someone too extreme to be electable.
_____________________________________________
Not quite. The changes after 1968 weakened the influence of the elected party members, leading to the disastrous McGovern ticket in 1972 and a weakened Carter campaign in 1980 (because of the very strong challenge and drama from Ted Kennedy). By 1984, 15% were set aside as superdelegates, and that figure later increased to 20%.
Im thinking that Kasich is going to be in this until the end, with Trump. His efforts in NH got him some spotlight.
Mumbles mumbles mumbles what am I going to do with you. You're like a trojan horse or some shit.Democracy is great, except when the mob mentality supports a demogogue. I'm not saying Bernie Sanders is one, but the superdelegates are meant to keep the party from nominating someone too extreme to be electable.
I have no dog in this race, but giving superdelegates that much power in a two-party system is horseshit. Why even hold primaries? And how many Sanders supporters do you suppose will be showing up to the general election after he gets jobbed?
Yup. Totally agree.
Funny how Democrats position themselves as "the party of the people", and then shit like this gets exposed.
Not that Bernie would win anyway, but boy is the system ever rigged against him.
He's winning there for sure. -600 is free money
It's a classic post. You need a few fish at the table to keep the conversation alive. So there is that.Mumbles mumbles mumbles what am I going to do with you. You're like a trojan horse or some shit.
Let's just say the process has an interesting structure. Let's not give democracy a bad name. Watch how you toss that word around.
Love to see the kids have a 'Murica Spring type uprising.
Just placed the max on Trump on Bovada ($1500 to win $250).
I hate making -600 bets because the return is so little, but he's 20 points ahead in the average polls, and the primary is 5 days away.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/president/
If he somehow shits the bed and loses the primary in SC... well, the $1500 won't wreck me anyway.
I don't understand this bet. Betting in a consistent winning fashion isn't about picking the winner but finding mistakes and exploiting the resulting value.
IAPT would not approve.
What don't you understand?I don't understand this bet. Betting in a consistent winning fashion isn't about picking the winner but finding mistakes and exploiting the resulting value.
IAPT would not approve.
I would be absolutely shocked if Trump loses. Like, beyond -600 shocked. I'm talking -2000 or higher shocked. He has been crushing in SC the whole way, and I don't see that changing in the next 5 days.
If you think I'm simply betting it because I believe Trump has the best chance to win, you don't understand why I bet it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
