Sanders wins debate. CNN pushes hillary anyway


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Sanders wins debate. CNN pushes hillary anyway

Apparently the liberal media is only a LITTLE liberal...


still early, story still comming in, haven't had coffee yet, take with salt etc etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Winning" the debate is always debatable and a internet poll doesn't really determine anything. If anything is actually meaningful, it'll be the polling in the next few days - if someone gets a definite bounce (or someone else drops), then winner might make sense.

For another take:

Quote:

At this point, less than 24 hours since the debate’s conclusion, there seem to be two sets of judgments circulating within the punditocracy. According to one group, who I label the “traditionalists”, there was a clear winner last night, and it was Hillary Clinton. Based on the traditional measurements – impressions of debating skills, point scoring, lack of gaffes, and the candidate’s stage presence, among other factors – Clinton removed any doubts about her front-runner status. As one pundit put it, “Republican and Democratic strategists found common ground on one point on Tuesday night: Clinton was the runaway winner.” It was, according to another, “the best day of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.” From this perspective, Clinton was poised, knowledgeable, made very few mistakes and generally commanded the stage.

From a second perspective, however, Sanders supporters have reason to claim their candidate won. A variety of social media metrics – increase in twitter supporters, google searches, hash tag mentions – indicates Sanders clearly sparked the most interest last night. His angry outburst telling the media that “the American people are sick of hearing about [Hillary’s] damn emails” instantly prompted a trending #Damnemails hashtag and was likely the most tweeted comment of the debate (never mind that Hillary benefited from Bernie’s tirade).

Furthermore I'm less interested in "who won" in the horserace sense than in what the candidates actually said and did. I'd also say that the Democratic Party as a whole won in comparison to the clown show that the Republican debates have been.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

True enough, although I wouldn't vote for any of the morons running for office now. I would feel safer with Cthulhu in office than any of the people in the two parties now. Cthulhu for 2016?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Divinitus wrote:
True enough, although I wouldn't vote for any of the morons running for office now. I would feel safer with Cthulhu in office than any of the people in the two parties now. Cthulhu for 2016?

Good news, increased funding for nasa!

Bad news, he's using the hubble telescope to take selfies.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

thejeff wrote:
Quote:
A variety of social media metrics – increase in twitter supporters... indicates Sanders clearly sparked the most interest last night.

On that note, I heard that the candidate who gained the most Twitter followers during the debate was actually... Trump.


RainyDayNinja wrote:
On that note, I heard that the candidate who gained the most Twitter followers during the debate was actually... Trump.

Wwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Divinitus wrote:
True enough, although I wouldn't vote for any of the morons running for office now. I would feel safer with Cthulhu in office than any of the people in the two parties now. Cthulhu for 2016?

Why choose the lesser evil?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, I'd vote for the Elder Party 2016 candidate rather than an American Democrat or American Republican (Let's just face it, there IS a difference between American versions of these and classical versions of these!).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
On that note, I heard that the candidate who gained the most Twitter followers during the debate was actually... Trump.
Wwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...?

He was MST3King the debate on twitter.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alf for President!

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Internet polls tend to show Bernie winning, and television news outlets tend to show Hillary winning. Guess which one has financial backing from Old Media companies.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Divinitus wrote:
Hey, I'd vote for the Elder Party 2016 candidate

Hillary and Bernie are both pretty darn elderly, so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I meant the Elder Evil Party, which still comes across as more human than the two parties and their candidates, sadly enough.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Divinitus wrote:
I meant the Elder Evil Party, which still comes across as more human than the two parties and their candidates, sadly enough.

Yeeeeeeaaaah, you're still gonna have to be more specific.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Divinitus wrote:
I meant the Elder Evil Party, which still comes across as more human than the two parties and their candidates, sadly enough.

Go ahead


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Touche!


#berndownforwhat


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Cthulhu/Shub-Niggurath ticket is the way to go in 2016. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RainyDayNinja wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quote:
A variety of social media metrics – increase in twitter supporters... indicates Sanders clearly sparked the most interest last night.
On that note, I heard that the candidate who gained the most Twitter followers during the debate was actually... Trump.

Probably because he had announced to his fans that he'd be live tweeting the debate. On the other hand most of us that were interested in the debate itself had no spare time to tweet it because unlike the clown show from the other side of the aisle, the debaters had content.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rednal wrote:
Divinitus wrote:
True enough, although I wouldn't vote for any of the morons running for office now. I would feel safer with Cthulhu in office than any of the people in the two parties now. Cthulhu for 2016?
Why choose the lesser evil?

Cthulu had to concede being the lesser evil when Dick Cheney was put on the ballot.


thejeff wrote:

"Winning" the debate is always debatable and a internet poll doesn't really determine anything. If anything is actually meaningful, it'll be the polling in the next few days - if someone gets a definite bounce (or someone else drops), then winner might make sense.

For another take:

Quote:

At this point, less than 24 hours since the debate’s conclusion, there seem to be two sets of judgments circulating within the punditocracy. According to one group, who I label the “traditionalists”, there was a clear winner last night, and it was Hillary Clinton. Based on the traditional measurements – impressions of debating skills, point scoring, lack of gaffes, and the candidate’s stage presence, among other factors – Clinton removed any doubts about her front-runner status. As one pundit put it, “Republican and Democratic strategists found common ground on one point on Tuesday night: Clinton was the runaway winner.” It was, according to another, “the best day of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.” From this perspective, Clinton was poised, knowledgeable, made very few mistakes and generally commanded the stage.

From a second perspective, however, Sanders supporters have reason to claim their candidate won. A variety of social media metrics – increase in twitter supporters, google searches, hash tag mentions – indicates Sanders clearly sparked the most interest last night. His angry outburst telling the media that “the American people are sick of hearing about [Hillary’s] damn emails” instantly prompted a trending #Damnemails hashtag and was likely the most tweeted comment of the debate (never mind that Hillary benefited from Bernie’s tirade).

Furthermore I'm less interested in "who won" in the horserace sense than in what the candidates actually said and did. I'd also say that the Democratic Party as a whole won in comparison to the clown show that the Republican debates have been.

Of course. The online poll is little more than a popularity contest. But why did CNN run the poll and then take down the results?

The only people I know of that are saying Clinton won the debate are media pundits and old-guard partisan hacks. Heck, I'd be more apt to give the point to Jim Webb who basically straight up said "I g#$&@!n smoked a guy in 'Nam!"


LazarX wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quote:
A variety of social media metrics – increase in twitter supporters... indicates Sanders clearly sparked the most interest last night.
On that note, I heard that the candidate who gained the most Twitter followers during the debate was actually... Trump.
Probably because he had announced to his fans that he'd be live tweeting the debate. On the other hand most of us that were interested in the debate itself had no spare time to tweet it because unlike the clown show from the other side of the aisle, the debaters had content.

Lincoln Chaffee is clearly a master debater.

And Clinton is a cunning linguist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Huffington Post's first scientific poll has Hillary winning


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anna Ragland (one of the people in the comments there) made some interesting points about that poll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of the distinction may be that Sanders has to do far more. He's got far more at stake. Clinton just has to not screw up. Sanders has to dominate to make up her lead.

Liberty's Edge

Clinton also has to hope Biden doesn't throw his hat in the ring.


Krensky wrote:
Clinton also has to hope Biden doesn't throw his hat in the ring.

He won't.

That may be the biggest win Clinton had in the debate. His chance and his only real reason was to be there if she imploded. She gave at worst a good enough performance in the debate to show that she's not imploding.

Not that there was any real evidence she was going to.

Biden's not getting in and he wouldn't beat her if he did.


Biden for VP... again.

Hey, its constitutional.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Biden for VP... again.

Hey, its constitutional.

Her husband of course is not elligible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wish Sanders didn't always sound like a guy ranting about whether or not he should be able to return his uneaten groceries at the supermarket for full store credit . . . OR MAYBE SOMETHING FAIRER FOR THE COMMON MAN!! *Waving my arms around like an inarticulate Yeti*


LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Biden for VP... again.

Hey, its constitutional.

Her husband of course is not elligible.

Is he not eligible to run for VP? He can't run for a third term as president, sure...


thejeff wrote:

Part of the distinction may be that Sanders has to do far more. He's got far more at stake. Clinton just has to not screw up. Sanders has to dominate to make up her lead.

On the other hand, one of Bernie's chief problems is that most Americans simply don't know who he is. So it could be argued that just by presenting himself clearly and well, he partially won that debate no matter what.

Yes, I have Tweeted the #feelthebern hashtag at least twice this month, why do you ask?

In other news, I propose Biden be declared the official USA VP-For-Life. Every new president has to deal with him and his lovable gaffs. No exceptions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Welcome, President West, and congratulations on your crushing victory last November. Now, to introduce you to the White House estate, we'll start with the Biden Room. Mister Vice President, please get up and greet your new...Mister Vice President? Oh, dear, he's sleeping. Let us not wake him. Next we have the Throne Room With The Trapdoor—connecting to the Presidential Alligator Tank, which we will not be visiting today..."

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
On that note, I heard that the candidate who gained the most Twitter followers during the debate was actually... Trump.
Wwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...?

Twits

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Biden for VP... again.

Hey, its constitutional.

Her husband of course is not elligible.
Is he not eligible to run for VP? He can't run for a third term as president, sure...

There are no term limits for VP.

In fact...Barrack Obama is eligible to run for Vice President. Moreover, if he was elected Vice President, and the elected President were to resign, he would become President. And he would still be eligible in the following election to run for Vice President again. And so on.

The 22nd Amendment wrote:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I doubt Hillary would choose Bill, though. She really needs to fight the "insider" feel (though I wouldn't be super surprised if she picked Biden). Plus, having a married couple as running mates would feel awkward and probably make people think of her as more reliant on her husband than she wants to be seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plus, the campaign billboards would look stupid as hell.

Wait, on a related note, is the shipname for the two of them "HillBill"? Oh dear. These two really should not be together in any media at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Plus, the campaign billboards would look stupid as hell.

Wait, on a related note, is the shipname for the two of them "HillBill"? Oh dear. These two really should not be together in any media at all.

They are from Arkansas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Heck, I'd be more apt to give the point to Jim Webb who basically straight up said "I g$@!&#n smoked a guy in 'Nam!"

Maybe I'll show my ignorance here, but I've never understood why this is relevant. A lot of presidential candidates seem to try and slide by on their military service (particularly in Vietnam) and it just baffles me...especially that it works.

Neato, you were a foot soldier in 'Nam...how does that make you a good president again?

McCain tried to slide by on the exact same campaign pretty much, at least as far as I recall, and it was weird to me then too.

Yes, I'm sure being in the military might have some value as a president as far as making military decisions, but that's not even close to the full job. What else ya got?


Hitdice wrote:
I just wish Sanders didn't always sound like a guy ranting about whether or not he should be able to return his uneaten groceries at the supermarket for full store credit . . . OR MAYBE SOMETHING FAIRER FOR THE COMMON MAN!! *Waving my arms around like an inarticulate Yeti*

Given that the alternative is "hey uhm.. no.. really. Wallstreet. Stop. Stop that" I'd take a Bernie Sander/Lewis black ticket in a heartbeat.


Rynjin wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Heck, I'd be more apt to give the point to Jim Webb who basically straight up said "I g$@!&#n smoked a guy in 'Nam!"

Maybe I'll show my ignorance here, but I've never understood why this is relevant. A lot of presidential candidates seem to try and slide by on their military service (particularly in Vietnam) and it just baffles me...especially that it works

Barrack: no military. Dodged the draft by virtue of still being in diapers.

McCain: military, seems to have helped

George Bush II: fake military. worked
Al Gore: Cushy but real military. Hurt.

George bush I: real military, worked.

Ducacas: real military, but democrat. Failed.
Reagan: TV military. Succeeded

It seems to me that the pattern goes that you have to be both a republican and a veteran to be REAL AMERICAN enough to play up your war record as something that makes you fit to be commander in chief, because only a REAL AMERICAN should be commander in chief.

Vietnam is just the only conflict where most presidential candidates would have aged to these days.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I never realized how devious Obama was, dodging the Nam and all.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Fox wrote:
In fact...Barrack Obama is eligible to run for Vice President. Moreover, if he was elected Vice President, and the elected President were to resign, he would become President.

The second sentence is definitely not true. The first is probably not true.

"...no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
12th Amendment

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once."
22nd Amendment

Per the 22nd, Obama is not eligible to hold the office of president again because he would then be doing so while having also been elected to the office more than once.

Per the usual interpretation of the 12th, Obama is then also not eligible to hold the office of the vice president because he is not eligible to hold the office of president again.

The alternate interpretation is that the 12th amendment restriction applies only to the original requirements for president (e.g. natural born citizen, 35+ years old, et cetera)... and thus excludes the additional requirements from the 22nd amendment. In which case Obama (or any past president) could serve as vice president... but still not become president again.

The Supreme Court has never needed to rule on this and thus either result is theoretically possible. However, a ruling that someone ineligible to the presidency could be vice president would be more than a bit odd. The whole point of the 12th amendment was to prevent a situation where the president died/resigned, the vice president was ineligible to assume the office, and suddenly John Boehner is President of the United States.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if someone were to resurrect Truman, he could become president in perpetuity?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Bernied Sanders literally can't win this. He keeps his message consistent with what he said thus far and he will be labelled a "dangerous leftist radical", a "communist", a "leap in the dark for the country". But if he changes his message instead to appease the media and the establishment he'll be called "ineffective and weak", and end up being the "typical lukewarm liberal".

Bottom line (imo): as any sociology class can teach you, the system protects the system. People who pose even a minimal threat to it get either demonized, character killed or, if ambitious, change their colours and try to get accepted. If they don't and despite everything they suceed, they get removed. I hear a lot of people claiming that "change is a good thing". Maybe so, but when it comes to changing the system I cannot but notice how those same people who love telling you this do everything they can to keep things going as they are. So my conclusion is they like "change" when it doesn't concern them but absolutely don't want it when it could affect them...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Bernied Sanders literally can't win this. He keeps his message consistent with what he said thus far and he will be labelled a "dangerous leftist radical", a "communist", a "leap in the dark for the country". But if he changes his message instead to appease the media and the establishment he'll be called "ineffective and weak", and end up being the "typical lukewarm liberal".

Anyone thats not a republican will be called that anyway.

Behold our current atheistmuslim weak dictator lead from behind fascist communistsocialist president.

The idea that you can stop criticism by changing your own behavior is nonsense.

The system always protects itself. Sometimes you beat it anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The cool thing about the primaries is that if everyone who said "I'd vote for Bernie, but he cannot with this so I'm voting for Hillary instead" would take a chance and vote for Bernie, the worst thing we'd have would be...Hillary. That being said, I disagree that he cannot win this. I think there's going to be a shift in the coming weeks following the debate. He's starting to get endorsements from Congressmen, he's been on a couple of reasonably well-viewed talk-shows (Colbert, Ellen, Maher-though that's not necessarily going to help him), and he's so consistent to his stances he donated the 2700$ he got from Pharma to charity rather than use it in his campaign. That being said, I have a Bernie bumper sticker the size of Vermont on my car, so mayby I'm a bit biased.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:

Bernied Sanders literally can't win this. He keeps his message consistent with what he said thus far and he will be labelled a "dangerous leftist radical", a "communist", a "leap in the dark for the country". But if he changes his message instead to appease the media and the establishment he'll be called "ineffective and weak", and end up being the "typical lukewarm liberal".

Bottom line (imo): as any sociology class can teach you, the system protects the system. People who pose even a minimal threat to it get either demonized, character killed or, if ambitious, change their colours and try to get accepted. If they don't and despite everything they suceed, they get removed. I hear a lot of people claiming that "change is a good thing". Maybe so, but when it comes to changing the system I cannot but notice how those same people who love telling you this do everything they can to keep things going as they are. So my conclusion is they like "change" when it doesn't concern them but absolutely don't want it when it could affect them...

"Literally can't win" is strong. His chances are very low, because Clinton is a good candidate and because he will be attacked as you suggest.

OTOH, should Clinton stumble badly and the Republicans choose a horribly flawed candidate as they seem determined to do, anything is possible.

His chances are low, as I said. OTOH, just having him campaign and debate shifts the Overton Window and makes his ideas seem far more acceptable.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

Per the 22nd, Obama is not eligible to hold the office of president again because he would then be doing so while having also been elected to the office more than once.

Per the usual interpretation of the 12th, Obama is then also not eligible to hold the office of the vice president because he is not eligible to hold the office of president again.

The alternate interpretation is that the 12th amendment restriction applies only to the original requirements for president (e.g. natural born citizen, 35+ years old, et cetera)... and thus excludes the additional requirements from the 22nd amendment. In which case Obama (or any past president) could serve as vice president... but still not become president again.

The Supreme Court has never needed to rule on this and thus either result is theoretically possible. However, a ruling that someone ineligible to the presidency could be vice president would be more than a bit odd. The whole point of the 12th amendment was to prevent a situation where the president died/resigned, the vice president was ineligible to assume the office, and suddenly John Boehner is President of the United States.

The 22nd Amendment precludes Obama from being elected President again. It does not preclude him from holding the office.

But, as you have pointed out, unless the Supreme Court were to make a ruling, all three interpretations you and I have put forth are merely academic.

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Sanders wins debate. CNN pushes hillary anyway All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.