• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So how exactly did this happen?

myDeaconmyhand said:
This. Trump won 4 swing states by a rough total of 100K votes. I'd love to hear BKFs theory as to why Democrats didn't show up to vote, rather than hearing him prattle on about the Republican enthusiasm that wasn't actually there.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Clinton got more votes in Florida than Obama in 2012 and ran essentially even with him in Pennsylvania, NC, and Virginia.
 
Last edited:
On a different but related note, Dems ought to seriously consider this super delegate bullshit that essentially forced HRC on the voters before the first primary ballot was even cast. Bernie would have whipped Trump's ass.
 
Shorty said:
On a different but related note, Dems ought to seriously consider this super delegate bullshit that essentially forced HRC on the voters before the first primary ballot was even cast. Bernie would have whipped Trump's ass.
Click to expand...

That narrative is false. Clinton had the advantage in super delegates over Obama and they all started switching when Obama got the pledged delegate lead, even through Clitnon ended up with more primary votes in that election.

Bernie lost because he got crushed in the south early and had no name recognition/support with traditional black voters. His path to the nomination was very limited at that point.

His strength was in the caucus states, but he had limited wins outside of that. You aren't going to win the nomination without winning several big population diverse primary states. He won a couple but not enough.

Clinton maintained the pledged delegate lead throughout the entire primary.

The only way that Bernie could have won the primary is if the superdelegates had overridden the pledged delegates.
 
Last edited:
Republicans do have superdelegates. They don't call them that, and they are a lower percentage of their total delegates than Dems, but they have delegates that aren't bound by any vote.
 
Junebug said:
The superdelegate count added to the narrative that Hillary was far an away the people's choice even early on. Whether that actually influenced the votes of people in later states, I don't know, but the D's really should have the superdelegates not announce until later in the process.

Also, I know I'm not the first to say this, but Bernie likely would have beaten Trump. I don't think there is a single state that she won that he wouldn't have won, and I can't see him losing PA, WI, or MI.
Click to expand...

Didn't stop Obama. He faced the exact same situation, but had enough core constituency support in addition to the progressive base to quickly legitimize himself.

Who knows about Bernie. he wouldn't have had wikileaks and the russians conspiring against him, but he has still never been negatively attacked. All hypothetical anyway. which is Bernie's problem. He needed to convert hypothetical to actual wins and he wasn't able to do that enough.
 
ChrisL68 said:
That narrative is false. Clinton had the advantage in super delegates over Obama and they all started switching when Obama got the pledged delegate lead, even through Clitnon ended up with more primary votes in that election.

Bernie lost because he got crushed in the south early and had no name recognition/support with traditional black voters. His path to the nomination was very limited at that point.

His strength was in the caucus states, but he had limited wins outside of that. You aren't going to win the nomination without winning several big population diverse primary states. He won a couple but not enough.

Clinton maintained the pledged delegate lead throughout the entire primary.

The only way that Bernie could have won the primary is if the superdelegates had overridden the pledged delegates.
Click to expand...

So what's you're saying is, Bernie would have totally gotten blown out in the areas of the country that Hillary Clinton got totally blown out in the general election.

Related: do you know how the Electoral College works?
 
It doesn't matter because that's how the Democratic primary works. The Pub primary works the same way. CA has more delegates than TX and NY is 3rd even though Pubs never win those states.

If you want to play that game, then you need to take away the delegates that Bernie won in the mountain west and midwest states that Dems never win. Then you get back to the core states they usually win and she best him pretty soundly in those states.

And they split OH, PA, MI, and WI the rust belt states.

Related; Do you always have to be such an ass? You have some interesting things to say if you would drop your condescending pretense and actually just say what you mean. I am not your child and i don't appreciate you talking to me like I am so cut the shit.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
That narrative is false. Clinton had the advantage in super delegates over Obama and they all started switching when Obama got the pledged delegate lead, even through Clitnon ended up with more primary votes in that election.

Bernie lost because he got crushed in the south early and had no name recognition/support with traditional black voters. His path to the nomination was very limited at that point.

His strength was in the caucus states, but he had limited wins outside of that. You aren't going to win the nomination without winning several big population diverse primary states. He won a couple but not enough.

Clinton maintained the pledged delegate lead throughout the entire primary.

The only way that Bernie could have won the primary is if the superdelegates had overridden the pledged delegates.
Click to expand...

If we want to know the truth of the matter, all Democratic roads really lead to this, don't they? Over a period of many years, the Democratic Party has gradually sold its soul to black voters in return for a 93% guaranteed vote to retain power. The black vote owns the keys to the Democratic Party now. The Democrats have counted on the middle-class white workers' vote continuing to be split....even though the Democrats have increasingly began to ignore it....so that this monolithic black vote, along with inevitable demographic movement in their favor, would keep them in while they ignored concerns of middle class white voters.

Well, it seems that those middle-class working white voters woke up in this election, didn't they?

So what are the Democrats going to do now? Well, so far, judging by comments on this board, they are just going to remain in denial of the fact that they have ignored the needs & pleas of working class white voters and, instead, just call them all racists for resenting the fact that Democrats have basically given them the middle finger for a long time now.
 
Now the Pubs are going to have to deliver on their promise of making these white middle class Americans lives better. They have no excuses now. Time to deliver.
 
bobknightfan said:
If we want to know the truth of the matter, all Democratic roads really lead to this, don't they? Over a period of many years, the Democratic Party has gradually sold its soul to black voters in return for a 93% guaranteed vote to retain power. The black vote owns the keys to the Democratic Party now. The Democrats have counted on the middle-class white workers' vote continuing to be split....even though the Democrats have increasingly began to ignore it....so that this monolithic black vote, along with inevitable demographic movement in their favor, would keep them in while they ignored concerns of middle class white voters.

Well, it seems that those middle-class working white voters woke up in this election, didn't they?

So what are the Democrats going to do now? Well, so far, judging by comments on this board, they are just going to remain in denial of the fact that they have ignored the needs & pleas of working class white voters and, instead, just call them all racists for resenting the fact that Democrats have basically given them the middle finger for a long time now.
Click to expand...


You can't keep calling people names and then expect their support.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Now the Pubs are going to have to deliver on their promise of making these white middle class Americans lives better. They have no excuses now. Time to deliver.
Click to expand...

True. However, the Republicans will get around two years as a grace period to blame Obama, then they will have to produce because they will have no one to blame and will be held accountable. Heaven help us if they lead us into a war in order to distract from their failures.
 
ChrisL68 said:
It doesn't matter because that's how the Democratic primary works. The Pub primary works the same way. CA has more delegates than TX and NY is 3rd even though Pubs never win those states.

If you want to play that game, then you need to take away the delegates that Bernie won in the mountain west and midwest states that Dems never win. Then you get back to the core states they usually win and she best him pretty soundly in those states.

And they split OH, PA, MI, and WI the rust belt states.

Related; Do you always have to be such an ass? You have some interesting things to say if you would drop your condescending pretense and actually just say what you mean. I am not your child and i don't appreciate you talking to me like I am so cut the shit.
Click to expand...

Chris,
What is the recommended tone for an exchange with people who are convinced they have a monopoly on empathy, compassion, judgment and wisdom and their opposing party has the same on racism and ignorance?
 
sailordeac said:
very true, the country is much better off without the Clintons, and the Democrats are also much better off without the Clintons
Click to expand...

Yes, it's just going to take some of them a while to figure that out. Maybe another week of riots will do the trick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top