@Vilageidiotx Here's the main thing I dislike about the political blood shed or politics in general, it's all shallow and mostly lying. I agree that it will probably be Trump VS Hillary. And the internet so desperately wants Sanders in, I've seen her getting torn to shreds by all the liberals on social media. Same with Trump, most conservatives are attacking Trump hard on social media. But when it's down to those two. Just like Mitt Romney, they'll all switch their tune and say, vote him! And Bernie will probably fully support Hillary and suddenly everyone will say vote her!

It just shows how hollow most words spoken are on both sides, and it doesn't make it any better when it's all nasty and vile. I get tired of discussing it before it even gets started.

I do care about politics more than the average person my age, but I hate how it seems to easily divide people even more than religion. I've lost friends (online) due to political differences, it's really damn stupid. It doesn't help when basically no one. (I'll include myself.) Doesn't have any actual clue what they are talking about. Even with college degrees on this stuff, the colleges are almost teaching propaganda instead of real history. A good majority of those people don't even try to learn both sides and tries right away to demonize different opinions. (not including me.)

It's mostly cathartic though. Sure, we all be peasants for the most part, but everyone eats up politics because it gives them the feeling that their problems aren't just some complicated doom they have to be faced with, but that there is some easy change they can make that'll improve everything if they can just get that change past the opposing side. And that's fine, because even if most people have a simplistic view, the world can be changed and it isn't a bad thing that people make an effort to effect that change. It sucks some people can't grow up and separate their political views from the rest of their social lives though; I know plenty of conservative people, but our political differences don't strain our relationships. If I think a person can't handle a disagreement, I don't bring up the subject.

That being said, don't get caught in that trap where you think the truth is this hidden nugget always found in the most safely unbiased place. It is true that biases exist in the teaching of history, though if you go to higher education you will most likely get the closest thing to a truth that history can possess (some teachers might try to spin it, but the hardcore focus on histiography dampens the effect quite a bit). The reality is that sometimes, the truth is biased. Truth surely as hell seems to be biased against fascism, for instance. The middle ground isn't always right just because it is emotionally safe.

Bernie did fine on super tuesday. I would argue he got what he needed to do and a bit more to stay in the race. The south was going to vote for hillary, the fact he could rack up close in many of those states is amazing. Ignore super delegates, they won't last with popular vote, and ignore the media, her lead is something like 100 delegates ahead, with only roughly a quarter of the states having voted so far in the primary. Hillary getting her strong hold states shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

Bernie did fine on super tuesday. I would argue he got what he needed to do and a bit more to stay in the race. The south was going to vote for hillary, the fact he could rack up close in many of those states is amazing. Ignore super delegates, they won't last with popular vote, and ignore the media, her lead is something like 100 delegates ahead, with only roughly a quarter of the states having voted so far in the primary. Hillary getting her strong hold states shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

ayy scribbles how u doin bby

bernie did better than i expected - honestly thought the dude was dead in the water with hillary leading everywhere

now the bernster is stil in the game but ya boy losin massachusetts is kind of a big deal. if ya boy cant win new england how is he going to carry the nation ya feel

just my two pence on the issue tho

<Snipped quote by scribz>

ayy scribbles how u doin bby

bernie did better than i expected - honestly thought the dude was dead in the water with hillary leading everywhere

now the bernster is stil in the game but ya boy losin massachusetts is kind of a big deal. if ya boy cant win new england how is he going to carry the nation ya feel

just my two pence on the issue tho

I get that argument but we could say the same about how close the nevada or (less so) iowa vote was. I'm less suprised about Massachusetts for it's geological location than I am for it's voting record. I'm rooting for sanders obvsies, but to me it's still a toss up with hillary at a 55% likely chance at winning the primary.

Point stands is hillary has massive name recognition, bernie still has growth, and the primaries is far from over.

plus there's always the outside chance that hil-dawg is in federal prison by the time the general election starts, which I just assume means Bernie in by default.

@mdk

I wouldn't expect it. She's a major political figure that has money, she'll never be thrown in jail. The worst that could happen to her would be a hit to polling numbers.

@mdk

I wouldn't expect it. She's a major political figure that has money, she'll never be thrown in jail. The worst that could happen to her would be a hit to polling numbers.

She's also a felon, so.... you know....

I mean you're right, she's important and everything, it's just that she got caught red-handed (this time -- not to mention all the sold influence and treason).

You never know. Petreus was winning the Iraq war and we knocked him out over essentially the same thing (though my tinfoil says, that was an effort to sabotage the press out of OIF).

@mdk

I wouldn't expect it. She's a major political figure that has money, she'll never be thrown in jail. The worst that could happen to her would be a hit to polling numbers.

Let's hope they catch her in a ponzi schemes. Rich folk only allow their own kind to be imprisoned when they catch them scheming other rich folk.

@mdk I had someone try to argue, she couldn't of done anything wrong, if she wasn't in jail.

A paused to be envious of such blind ignorance and naiveness. But that's how I feel most political discussion is on the internet.

@Vilageidiotx Well there's a saying "facts don't care about your feelings" and yeah that can certainly be applied. And I don't really have anything against people saying outlandish things, like I'm moving if so and so is picked. I mean IF its all in good fun and not suppose to be taken seriously.

But, sadly people DO, take it seriously. It's scary how much certain people lean on how important they are. Especially teenagers for some damn reason. Since they actually know nothing about the real world or not educated in it. Like all the people in colleges, starting riots and wanting safe spaces and trying to ban people from speaking...its ridiculous but it's only becoming more prevalent.

I'm rooting for sanders obvsies, but to me it's still a toss up with hillary at a 55% likely chance at winning the primary.

Point stands is hillary has massive name recognition, bernie still has growth, and the primaries is far from over.

That seems a little optimistic. If primaries were determined by a straightforward assessment of popular support, he might have had a chance. But they aren't (at least for the Democrats), so I'd say his odds of winning are in the single digits percentage wise, if that. Obviously, any further massive scandals on Hillary's part could give Bernie a sort of win by default, but as it stands...

It's a tad disingenuous to count super delegates quite yet. If Sanders wins more state delegates, the dens would be playing a dangerous game using super delegates to override the popular decision. Not saying they won't do it, but it wouldn't be the smart move, since Clinton is already a controversial figure, and the accusation of gaming the primary would be easier to,stick on her than really any other candidate.

My opinion is that this election has already deviated too far from the script to predict. If I had to place a bet it would be for a Hillary vs Trump general with Trump taking the prize, but it wouldn't be a comfortable bet. It won't surprise me if any of the top five candidates running right now at least make it to the general.

It's a tad disingenuous to count super delegates quite yet. If Sanders wins more state delegates, the dens would be playing a dangerous game using super delegates to override the popular decision. Not saying they won't do it, but it wouldn't be the smart move, since Clinton is already a controversial figure, and the accusation of gaming the primary would be easier to,stick on her than really any other candidate.

My opinion is that this election has already deviated too far from the script to predict. If I had to place a bet it would be for a Hillary vs Trump general with Trump taking the prize, but it wouldn't be a comfortable bet. It won't surprise me if any of the top five candidates running right now at least make it to the general.

Do you really think people will vote Trump over Hillary? I'm pretty sure the whole, we need to solely bring in our next president because of their ____ vote them or you're a horrible person, shtick by the media will more than likely work a third time...and then a fourth. Because I may be pessimistic, but the average person has to be very, very stupid. (or easily influenced at the very least.)

I mean, there was one poll that had Sanders actually winning in percents but somehow losing in every one. So, it wouldn't be surprising that they pull some shady stuff, to make Hillary win regardless of his popularity.

Though, do polls ever mean anything? I saw a poll trying to say even a small percent chance Biden or people like Kasich would win. Then I laughed.

It's a tad disingenuous to count super delegates quite yet. If Sanders wins more state delegates, the dens would be playing a dangerous game using super delegates to override the popular decision. Not saying they won't do it, but it wouldn't be the smart move, since Clinton is already a controversial figure, and the accusation of gaming the primary would be easier to,stick on her than really any other candidate.

My opinion is that this election has already deviated too far from the script to predict. If I had to place a bet it would be for a Hillary vs Trump general with Trump taking the prize, but it wouldn't be a comfortable bet. It won't surprise me if any of the top five candidates running right now at least make it to the general.

The reason 'Clinton games the primary process' would stick is because she absolutely will do that regardless of what you think about it, and the press will bow. The Clintons are the Democrat establishment, and the Democrat establishment owns a massive majority of relevant media. So, buckle up, because that's happening.

Though, do polls ever mean anything?

No. Polls are conducted in order to obtain a desired result, and the 'desired result' in this case typically refers to headlines capable of feeding the 24-hour news cycle. Polls mean nothing whatsoever. Exit polls, as in, "You just voted, who did you vote for?" don't even mean anything. Ignore all polls. They have a certain amount of relevance to the campaigns themselves -- but campaigns don't use the gallup or the CNN.com poll or whatever else YOU get to look at. They all have their own, confidential, tailored pollsters. The polls you have access to are shit.

It's a tad disingenuous to count super delegates quite yet. If Sanders wins more state delegates, the dens would be playing a dangerous game using super delegates to override the popular decision. Not saying they won't do it, but it wouldn't be the smart move, since Clinton is already a controversial figure, and the accusation of gaming the primary would be easier to,stick on her than really any other candidate.

Randomly deciding to ignore Super Delegates at the last moment because Sanders supporters thinks they're unfair isn't going to happen. If the Democrats cared about having democratically elected candidates, they would have changed the system long ago.

These aren't polls or something that may or may not be included in the final result. They are votes cast. Sanders has almost no possibility whatsoever of becoming the Democratic candidate. It's getting to the point where his only potential way of winning is if Clinton is disqualified.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Randomly deciding to ignore Super Delegates at the last moment because Sanders supporters thinks they're unfair isn't going to happen. If the Democrats cared about having democratically elected candidates, they would have changed the system long ago.

These aren't polls or something that may or may not be included in the final result. They are votes cast. Sanders has almost no possibility whatsoever of becoming the Democratic candidate. It's getting to the point where his only potential way of winning is if Clinton is disqualified.

What I am saying is that they aren't actually cast yet, not until they go to convention. If they decide to use the superdelegates in the way you are saying, they absolutely run the risk of alienating some voters. It most certainly won't make a difference with most voters. Hell, even the grand majority of Sanders voters will most likely vote for Clinton regardless. But elections are won on the margin, and I suspect this one is going to be a close election. There are absolutely places they can get away with using superdelegates to spite a candidate who wins the primaries, but I don't think this year is one of those places. Hillary doesn't have the power of personality to make up for it with the voters, and she's already dragging a fairly bad reputation as far as things go. Would a superdelegate based victory drive potential Dem voters into the arms of the Republicans? Probably not. But will it damage her ability to actually bring voters to the polls when it comes time for the general? That's where things stop being so certain for her.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Do you really think people will vote Trump over Hillary? I'm pretty sure the whole, we need to solely bring in our next president because of their ____ vote them or you're a horrible person, shtick by the media will more than likely work a third time...and then a fourth. Because I may be pessimistic, but the average person has to be very, very stupid. (or easily influenced at the very least.)

I think, like I said above, that Hillary will have a difficult time bringing in voters during the general. It's not only a matter of who a person decides to vote for, but whether or not a person decides to vote. Trump has an enthusiastic support base, whereas Clinton's support seems to mostly be among dedicated democrats. The biggest thing she'll have going for her is the fact Trump is so fun to hate for so much of the population. So for her, the question will be how many people are willing to go out and vote for her just to spite Trump.

<Snipped quote by scribz>

That seems a little optimistic. If primaries were determined by a straightforward assessment of popular support, he might have had a chance. But they aren't (at least for the Democrats), so I'd say his odds of winning are in the single digits percentage wise, if that. Obviously, any further massive scandals on Hillary's part could give Bernie a sort of win by default, but as it stands...

I think tomorrow is the deciding point. I'm not giving him the lead but he;s not out yet.