LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 iirc Bernie would need like, all the remaining delegates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 No but they give a reasonable indication that Hillary is indeed ahead Ya'll can keep smoking the pipe dream of Sanders winning this, but it's implausibleI initially asked for official counts, and I cited that Caucus States don't give them. Relax mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 iirc Bernie would need like, all the remaining delegates. He doesn't need all the remaining delee gates. He just needs a heavy majority of them. Like probably 60% of the remaining delegates or something along those lines? Given California is still yet to happen. Also popular vote statistics won't actually give an indication of which candidate is preferred by the public, given how far back in time some of them stretch. One of the disadvantages of the staggered electoral system means Hilary or Bernie could have grown in popularity since the initial caucus and we have no metric for that. EDIT; Hell, we even have situations where the stated results for a state are just lies: http://www.inquisitr.com/3022058/election-board-scandal-21-bernie-votes-were-erased-and-49-hillary-votes-added-to-audit-tally-group-declares-video/ It's actually just amusing that nothing has been done about multiple separate recorded instances of foul play across various stages of this Primary. At times it feels like even if a big neon sign declaring 'Electoral fraud happening right here, right now, come watch' was plastered above this stuff happening, nothing would come of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Who cares about official counts? Like actually why does it matter off they are official or not? The theoretical concept is completely sound anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 It's actually just amusing that nothing has been done about multiple separate recorded instances of foul play across various stages of this Primary. At times it feels like even if a big neon sign declaring 'Electoral fraud happening right here, right now, come watch' was plastered above this stuff happening, nothing would come of it. that's what discourages me most about this election. there have been at least 3 moments where i could swear people should have been kicked out of the running for actively attempting (and sometimes succeeding) to mess with elections. why is there so little coverage of the foul play this election season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 One needs to look no further than Ted Cruz buying off Trump delegates or Colorado canceling the voting to realize that Tom My only regret is that I voted as people pressured me to, rather than as I felt was right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Who cares about official counts? Like actually why does it matter off they are official or not? The theoretical concept is completely sound anywayHave you been paying attention to all the sheet that has been going on? Official counts bring order by leaving out room for error that theoretical models can bring. Now, I suggest you leave this be Welche...that's what discourages me most about this election. there have been at least 3 moments where i could swear people should have been kicked out of the running for actively attempting (and sometimes succeeding) to mess with elections. why is there so little coverage of the foul play this election season?Because the establishment is usually the suspect in that, and not a lot of officials want to piss off the establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Have you been paying attention to all the s*** that has been going on? Official counts bring order by leaving out room for error that theoretical models can bring. Now, I suggest you leave this be Welche... Because the establishment is usually the suspect in that, and not a lot of officials want to piss off the establishment.it's sickening that people actively try to imbalance the election in their favor. if somebody i want to win loses, i want it to be in a fair election, not the mess that we have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 It's an important theoretical point so I'd rather not. Are you suggesting super delegates are better off voting based on delegate counts that aren't proportional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 It's an important theoretical point so I'd rather not. Are you suggesting super delegates are better off voting based on delegate counts that aren't proportional?I'm suggesting something tangeable like an official popular vote count and not theoretical. How hard is it to get that through to you? *looks at US/Canada Customs* Okay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 What? in the official vote count Hillary is ahead. In the theoretical vote count Hillary is ahead. Your initial comment seemed to suggest you were opposed the the prior and your later comment suggests you're opposed to the later. I'm confused on your stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 What? in the official vote count Hillary is ahead. In the theoretical vote count Hillary is ahead. Your initial comment seemed to suggest you were opposed the the prior and your later comment suggests you're opposed to the later. I'm confused on your stance.Caucus States don't release official popular vote counts, only delegate equivalents or whatever system they have in place. The counts people bring up don't have the counts for the caucuses for the reason above. Hence, those counts cannot be considered official. Since theoretical counts can't be considered official, the point of bringing up an incomplete popular vote count is moot. My argument is based on technical nuances, my good sir. That is all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Caucus States don't release official popular vote counts, only delegate equivalents or whatever system they have in place. The counts people bring up don't have the counts for the caucuses for the reason above. Hence, those counts cannot be considered official. Since theoretical counts can't be considered official, the point of bringing up an incomplete popular vote count is moot. My argument is based on technical nuances, my good sir. That is all I'm saying.some caucus states do release popular vote actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 some caucus states do release popular vote actually Source please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted April 24, 2016 Report Share Posted April 24, 2016 It's not moot. I am now asking you how you think super delegates should decide their vote, particularly in a case where one candidate received more votes based in official counts and enough of a lead that it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that they won more votes overall but the other candidate receives more delegates. You haven't answered that yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted April 24, 2016 Report Share Posted April 24, 2016 Source please?Utah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 24, 2016 Report Share Posted April 24, 2016 It's not moot. I am now asking you how you think super delegates should decide their vote, particularly in a case where one candidate received more votes based in official counts and enough of a lead that it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that they won more votes overall but the other candidate receives more delegates. You haven't answered that yet.Maybe because you never explicitly asked afaik. Listen, my fraternity has been pissing me off lately, so please forgive me for not wanting to answer completely atm. For a short answer, head to head general election polls could be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/upshot/cruz-kasich-deal-means-a-much-better-chance-to-stop-trump.html?_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com/ Let the back door dealing begin. At least I won't have to deal with Cruz here in Oregon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/upshot/cruz-kasich-deal-means-a-much-better-chance-to-stop-trump.html?_r=0&referer=http://m.facebook.com/Let the back door dealing begin. At least I won't have to deal with Cruz here in Oregon...It doesn't matter. Assuming best case they shrink Trump's Indiana lead from 8% to 3% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 It doesn't matter. Assuming best case they shrink Trump's Indiana lead from 8% to 3%How about you think of broader implication, okay? They are in prevention mode, not winning mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 It doesn't matter. Assuming best case they shrink Trump's Indiana lead from 8% to 3% The whole point of it is that by doing this, the GOP thinks they can get to convention without having to appoint Trump, and then they can skip over him. Since Trump can't realistically win running Independent, consequences be dammed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 The whole point of it is that by doing this, the GOP thinks they can get to convention without having to appoint Trump, and then they can skip over him. Since Trump can't realistically win running Independent, consequences be dammed. You're missing the pt. Indiana gives 30'delegates to the winner and Trump doesn't even need Indiana to win and get to 1237 They're not gonna stop his Northern rampage morrow. Lying Ted and 1/38 Kasich can try all they want but they're not gonna be able to prevent Trump. And Trump's gaining on Hillary. Them robbing Trump is the death of the GOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 You're missing the pt. Indiana gives 30'delegates to the winner and Trump doesn't even need Indiana to win and get to 1237 They're not gonna stop his Northern rampage morrow. Lying Ted and 1/38 Kasich can try all they want but they're not gonna be able to prevent Trump. And Trump's gaining on Hillary. Them robbing Trump is the death of the GOPYet Oregon and New Mexico are proportional states, which makes this strategy more appealing considering that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 You're missing the pt. Indiana gives 30'delegates to the winner and Trump doesn't even need Indiana to win and get to 1237 They're not gonna stop his Northern rampage morrow. Lying Ted and 1/38 Kasich can try all they want but they're not gonna be able to prevent Trump. And Trump's gaining on Hillary. Them robbing Trump is the death of the GOP If that's the case this doesn't matter anyway. If they do end up stopping him from this then it's just a win for them. People disfranchised with them will probably not Vote if Hlliary wins like she probably will, so they just rely on the incredibly dedicated base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathanael D. Striker Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/us/politics/ted-cruz-john-kasich-donald-trump.html Well, that didn't last long. Good going folks, way to funk it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.