Jophiel wrote:
No, I'm comparing your silly statements where you continually insist that a lead barely counts because you don't like it. You were all in a huff because Romney just got smacked in the general and so were petulantly saying that Obama barely won the election.
And again, that has nothing to do with an interpretation of the delegate count numbers Clinton is winning compared to Sanders. Great job changing the subject, but I'm talking just about this one primary race and what it means.
Quote:
Quote:
I get why you'd want to argue otherwise
Because reality? I mean, congratulations on once again trying to turn a line around on me because it got under your skin and all, but I'm saying that Clinton has a solid lead and lock on the nomination because, well, Clinton has a solid lead and lock on the nomination. To quote the husband of a certain Democratic front-runner: that's just math.
The fact that we have to do math at all kinda proves my point. And once again, you're missing (avoiding!) the point. It's not about whether she's leading. It's by how much she's leading. She should be doing far far better. And everyone knows this. But Democrats and liberal spin doctors do everything they can to try to downplay the significance of that fact. Doesn't change said fact though. She's doing far far worse than anyone expected, especially against someone like Sanders.
Quote:
Again, the whole "OMG Sanders! Eeeeewwwww cooties!" thing is your own invention.
Well, it's actually yours, since I've never said anything like that. Projection on your part. I get that this is hard for liberals to manage, but I'm perfectly capable of saying that a candidate is not a strong enough candidate to win the presidency, without having to engage in silly personal attacks about that person. He doesn't need to have cooties for me to say that he's not got sufficient appeal to voters in the US to win the general. His political positions are simply too far outside the mainstream. No cooties. That's all your thing, I guess.
Quote:
Polling shows that Democrats are pretty satisfied with both of their choices. There's no meat to the idea that Clinton "should" be leading by a million-thousand points because most Democrats aren't really worried about who is leading -- they're happy either way.
Uh. Yeah. I don't think those exit poll results say what you think they do. Lack of imagination on your part, I suspect.
Quote:
Sanders doesn't throw them into conniptions and make him run to Clinton as you keep insisting he must, just because he throws you into conniptions.
And again, the presumption of emotional reasoning. That's your thing, not mine.
Quote:
You're projecting, kiddo.
LOL! That's classic. Given your entire post so far as been you ignoring what I've actually written, choosing instead to project some other bizarre emotion laden strawman onto me, so you can attack it, that's just funny. Projection. haha!
Quote:
****, even among the Clinton-leaning people here and in other places I haunt, it's never really about "Sanders sucks!" but rather "Sanders' supporters should probably get ready for him to lose" without spending time attacking Sanders himself. People aren't really turned off by Sanders, they just think some of his supporters are a bit too idealistic about the whole thing.
And you know what's missing from your post? Any sort of refutation of my argument that Clinton's delegate count over Sanders at this point represents weak support for Clinton. You've managed to tap dance completely around the core issue. Congratulations, I suppose. You're still ignoring the main point: She should be winning by far far more pledged delegates at this point. You can point to all the satisfaction surveys you want, make silly comparisons to past general election results if you want, and project all the emotional appeals you want, but that does not change the fact that she's not doing anywhere near as well as she should be if the voters in the Democratic party primaries really thought of her as the best candidate for the job. She should not be even close to splitting votes and delegates with Bernie Sanders. Period.
But she is.