• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Buttigieg wins New Hampshire - congrats!

CNN is just laughable. Here's a comparison that no one seems to be talking about:

2016 New Hampshire Primary results, Bernie wins with 60.4% of the vote

2020 New Hampshire Primary results, Bernie wins with 25.7% of the vote

That's a 35% drop in Bernie's neighboring state which I think spells a lot of trouble for Bernie.

In 2016, there were far fewer candidates to split the vote than 2020, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.
 
In attracting the independent voter, I agree it is probably AK. A moderate from the Midwest that could surprise in the south. I'm thinking my home state of Georgia, possibly North Carolina also. I don't think Sanders or someone from the Northeast could pull those upsets. Buttigieg is hard to gauge on how he might fair. The last Democratic candidate who did well in the south was JFK, back when the south was solid Democrat, 1960. Since then Dukakis, Kerry and Hillary all lost the south while losing nationwide.

I do think come the general election, both Georgia and North Carolina are ripe for the taking with the right candidate. I'll know more as time goes by.

I think Jimmy Carter pretty much swept the south in 76. That was the end of the solid south for dems as it converted to the solid south for republicans ever since.
 
Last edited:
We desperately need Bernie to win many more states to show America how far to the left your party has regressed.

the perfect counter to the right who have regressed so far to the rich, they are practically off the chart.
 
I think Jimmy Carter pretty much swept the south in 76. That was the end of the solid south for dems as it converted to the solid south for republicans ever since.

Yeah, 1976 was the last year for the solid Democratic South. Bill Clinton did good in 1992 winning Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky. He won those same states in 1996 minus Georgia. So who the Democrats nominate is important. I don't think the south would go for a northeasterner. They might, a couple of states that is go for a Midwesterner. I'm talking Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky here if one puts Kentucky in the south.
 
I have no idea why CNN and others proclaim Bernie "won" NH when both candidates got the same number of delegates (as of now with 97% of votes in)

It would be the same as CNN and others claiming that Hillary won 2016 when we all know popular vote does not count for much in this country's Presidential elections.

Anyway, I thought media was supposed be anti-Bernie, so what's up with this bizarre narrative?

Because NH has a Primary not a Caucus and the popular vote determines who wins a Primary. Bernie won the NH Primary and Mayor Pete won the Iowa Caucus.

Delegate distribution is a direct result of a Caucus and a byproduct of a Primary.
 
Because NH has a Primary not a Caucus and the popular vote determines who wins a Primary. Bernie won the NH Primary and Mayor Pete won the Iowa Caucus.

Bernie did not win the primary since he got SAME NUMBER of delegates. What determines who becomes nominee, i.e. wins? Number of delegates, right?
 
Last edited:
count delegates. Nothing else matters.

I seem to recall quite a bit of concern over counting only the delegates in the aftermath of the 2016 election.
 
Bernie did not win the primary since he got SAME NUMBER of delegates. What determines who becomes nominee, i.e. wins? Number of delegates, right?

A Primary is based on the popular vote. The popular vote winner wins the Primary. its that simple. Bernie won the popular vote. He won the Primary. Delegate distribution is based on a formulaic calculation which can be changed at virtually any time. It can be more or less granular depending on the formula the Party decides to use. The Primary itself IS RUN BY THE STATE. The Party gets to determine the formula that will be used to assign delegates. The State runs the Primary. The Party gets to decide how to distribute delegates based on the Primary Popular Vote result.

A Caucus also uses a formula to arrive at a delegate count. However a Caucus is run by the Party. The State has nothing to do with it and the delegate count is the actual direct output of the Caucus. In fact, the delegate count is the ONLY output that counts in a Caucus.
 
A Primary is based on the popular vote. The popular vote winner wins the Primary. its that simple. Bernie won the popular vote. He won the Primary. Delegate distribution is based on a formulaic calculation which can be changed at virtually any time. It can be more or less granular depending on the formula the Party decides to use. The Primary itself IS RUN BY THE STATE. The Party gets to determine the formula that will be used to assign delegates. The State runs the Primary. The Party gets to decide how to distribute delegates based on the Primary Popular Vote result.

That's all very nice but my question remains: What determines who wins the nomination? Number of delegates, right?

Who has highest number of delegates in NH?

You cannot say person A wins and person B loses if they have the same final score.

If the formula were different, maybe A would have won, but it is not, so it's not relevant as far as validity of statement "person A wins and person B loses".
 
the perfect counter to the right who have regressed so far to the rich, they are practically off the chart.

Here we go with the typical rich envy. Rich people create jobs and buy stuff. Don't envy them. Cheer them.
 
That's all very nice but my question remains: What determines who wins the nomination? Number of delegates, right?

Who has highest number of delegates in NH?

You cannot say person A wins and person B loses if they have the same final score.

If the formula were different, maybe A would have won, but it is not, so it's not relevant as far as validity of statement "person A wins and person B loses".

Which has nothing to do with the declared winner of a Primary just as the allocation totals have nothing to do with the declared winner of a Caucus.
 
Yeah, 1976 was the last year for the solid Democratic South. Bill Clinton did good in 1992 winning Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky. He won those same states in 1996 minus Georgia. So who the Democrats nominate is important. I don't think the south would go for a northeasterner. They might, a couple of states that is go for a Midwesterner. I'm talking Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky here if one puts Kentucky in the south.

The south is solid again but for republicans. Gore was from Tennessee and couldn'tt even win his own state. I see a slight swing possibility in NC and possibly Georgia if the AA turnout is huge and not suppressed.
 
I have no idea why CNN and others proclaim Bernie "won" NH when both candidates got the same number of delegates (as of now with 97% of votes in)

It would be the same as CNN and others claiming that Hillary won 2016 when we all know popular vote does not count for much in this country's Presidential elections.

Anyway, I thought media was supposed be anti-Bernie, so what's up with this bizarre narrative?

I noticed that myself, Bernie was declared by the MSM to be in first place in the race, even though Buttigieg actually has one more delegate than Bernie does. Guess they are discriminating against the gay guy.
 
Here we go with the typical rich envy. Rich people create jobs and buy stuff. Don't envy them. Cheer them.

A million dollars to one billionaire. How many pants would he buy for himself.

Now... A million dollars spread out over 20,000 people. How many pants would they buy? At least 20,000 pair.

Which facet creates more economic demand?

Your worship of the rich is skewing any ability for you to have a sane economic vision.
 
Which has nothing to do with the declared winner of a Primary just as the allocation totals have nothing to do with the declared winner of a Caucus.

Number of delegates has nothing to do with winner of a Primary?

You are not making sense here - who wins a primary? Person with most delegates.
 
The south is solid again but for republicans. Gore was from Tennessee and couldn'tt even win his own state. I see a slight swing possibility in NC and possibly Georgia if the AA turnout is huge and not suppressed.

Gore peeved off a lot of folks in Tennessee. But you're correct about Georgia and NC.
 
A million dollars to one billionaire. How many pants would he buy for himself.

Now... A million dollars spread out over 20,000 people. How many pants would they buy? At least 20,000 pair.

Which facet creates more economic demand?

Your worship of the rich is skewing any ability for you to have a sane economic vision.

They tried this in Venezuela already.
 
They tried math in Venezuela? :lol:

My apologies for trying to make you add numbers and stuff.

Yes. Like you, they thought gubment was better at spending money than those who made it. They forgot that your plan subtracts money from the rich, and like Hillary's charity, maybe 5 or 10% of that ever makes it to the poor.

But, Mr. Progressive. Let us assume for a minute that you could tax people 80% of their income and confiscate their r=hard earned money from them. Where will the money come from when they refuse to go along with your great plan?
 
Yes. Like you, they thought gubment was better at spending money than those who made it. They forgot that your plan subtracts money from the rich, and like Hillary's charity, maybe 5 or 10% of that ever makes it to the poor.

But, Mr. Progressive. Let us assume for a minute that you could tax people 80% of their income and confiscate their r=hard earned money from them. Where will the money come from when they refuse to go along with your great plan?

I said absolutely nothing about government. Not o e thing. My small math question was about all private spending. So you don't do well with math or reading. Sad.
 
I said absolutely nothing about government. Not o e thing. My small math question was about all private spending. So you don't do well with math or reading. Sad.

You said:

A million dollars to one billionaire. How many pants would he buy for himself.

Now... A million dollars spread out over 20,000 people. How many pants would they buy? At least 20,000 pair.

Which facet creates more economic demand?

Your worship of the rich is skewing any ability for you to have a sane economic vision.

How would the bolded above be accomplished unless GOVERNMENT did it??
 
You said:



How would the bolded above be accomplished unless GOVERNMENT did it??

If the middle class made more money because they got paid more.

No math ability
No reading ability
Add to that no ability to imagine anything other than gubamint ebil.

The scenario has nothing to do with government. Its basic math and common sense. Simple question, who owns more pants, Donald Trump or 20,000 middle class people?
 
Last edited:
If the middle class made more money because they got paid more.

No math ability
No reading ability
Add to that no ability to imagine anything other than gubamint ebil.

The scenario has nothing to do with government. Its basic math and common sense. Simple question, who owns more pants, Donald Trump or 20,000 middle class people?

And.........??
 
What you are trying to say. We can read what you've actually said

Ah! Well if most whites vote republican, this means that democrats need minorities to make up for it. Traditionally the democrats depend heavily on the black vote. Buttigieg is gay, and therefore won't have as much black support as he otherwise would have if he weren't gay, for the simple fact that blacks are more against gays than whites are. He was polling at 0% with blacks if I'm not mistaken - and that's because he's gay.

Whites on the other hand love gays, as you can see he's right up there with Sanders in the two contests so far.
 
Back
Top Bottom