It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sanders is sweeping it in Washington State!!!

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Aren't all the democratic primaries winner take all? Republicans have that split rule but not dems.
No I'm wrong if a candidate gets at least 15% of the popular vote they get some delegates.
edit on 3262016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Hillary will get 34 from Hawaii.
Those numbers do not include super delegates.
edit on 3262016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
If Bernie Bros balls ever dropped they could reasonably blame low info minorities for all this but that would be racist



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Uhh...I don't think that's right.

Washington state has 101 pledged delegates and 17 super-delegates. Sanders isn't going to get all of those delegates because, again, these aren't winner-take-all elections. Some of the super's might swing over after tonight but Sanders is probably only going to get about 75 delegates from Washington.

If you count super-delegates (who will switch if popular vote goes in Bernie's favor, see Obama in 2008) then yes, Hillary has 700+ delegates. If you don't count super-delegates, her lead is much, much smaller.

I mean, if you count super-delegates; Hillary had a 200 delegate lead before she even announced, which is ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: links234

Aren't all the democratic primaries winner take all? Republicans have that split rule but not dems.


You should "study" the way delegates are "awarded".

knowlege can be dangerous



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Yeah I looked it up. A chart I was looking at showed the allocation for rep but not for dems. I made an assumption. Oops you know what that means lol.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah hey my biggest fan. I can admit when I'm wrong.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

Right?!!!! Awesome! I take it as a clear sign. Truly.
Any person who attracts and is able to relate to animals is a good person.
Go BERNIE!!!!

LOL!!! On the live feed, they're now calling the unexpected guest "Birdie Sanders."





Obvious media stunt is obvious.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
blatant vote rigging by the sanders campaign

calling states with only 31% reporting? The Clinton campaign should file a lawsuit.


Oh, come on. That's typical of any election. All you need is a statistically valid sample. To get that you probably need less than a thousand votes. I don't have the exact numbers, but it is pitifully low. That's why they can validate a national poll with a couple thousand voters.

That's not to say there aren't issues. In the case of Washington State the Cascade Mountain range divides Eastern and Western Washington. The west is largely urban and liberal and the east is largely rural and conservative. So if you called a winner based on only Eastern Washington precincts, then it would be an invalid sample. But no reputable pollster would do that. If the sample is truly scientifically random, it's valid and is PROBABLY indicative of the entire election. These things are usually done at the ".05 confidence level," meaning there's a 1 in 20 chance the results are according to chance. If you want a 1 in 99 chance (.01 confidence level) you need a much larger and more expensive sample. At 31% reporting you are well beyond that and it's perfectly valid to call the election at that point.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs Feel the Bern! Bernie is the syphilis of the body politic.Sure its fun while you are partying afterwards it berns when you try to relieve yourself of his policies. No country has ever prospered under socialism they have all failed or are in failure mode. The younger crowd thinks the guy in the crumpled suit is benign and has your interests at heart, he is very dangerous.Which model of socialism does burnie want to follow? Cuba sound good.?




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

No, you have it backwards. Dem primaries/caucuses are all proportional. It's the GOP that are "winner take all" (provided the GOP person gets 50% or more).

I didn't know that til a couple of weeks ago; but, that's in fact how it works.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: PsychicCroMag


No country has ever prospered under socialism they have all failed or are in failure mode.

Hrmmmm......
no. Wrong.

Provide legitimate sources for this claim if you want it to be considered.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: PsychicCroMag


Bernie is the syphilis of the body politic.

That's a disgusting thing to say.
Besides being wrong.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BigScaryStrawman

LOL!!!! How is that bird a media stunt?????


edit on 3/26/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
No country has ever prospered under socialism they have all failed or are in failure mode.
Which model of socialism does burnie want to follow?


Norway, Sweden, Germany, Canada, etc.

I didn't realize all of those countries were failed nations and/or failing.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

The "Socialist" countries that prosper do so because of Capitalism and low corporate tax.




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
No country has ever prospered under socialism they have all failed or are in failure mode.
Which model of socialism does burnie want to follow?


Norway, Sweden, Germany, Canada, etc.

I didn't realize all of those countries were failed nations and/or failing.


I didn't realize they were socialist. They have private enterprise and their economies are not totally controlled by the state. Oh, they have socialist elements, to be sure: Norway and Sweden somewhat more than Canada and Germany, but how about 100% socialist nations like Venezuela, Cuba, the old Soviet Union and Eastern Germany, China (w/o capitalism), etc. Are those countries paragons of a booming economy and personal freedom? How do they handle free speech rights and dissent? How about their GDP and general well-being of their citizens? In order to become "socialist," those countries killed millions of people. If Granddad didn't want to give up his private farm to the "collective," he was simply eliminated.

I've noticed that hose who extol the virtues of socialism readily point to the aforementioned countries, but Cuba and Venezuela? Not so much.

I think Bernie is much more of a Norway/Sweden type of socialist than a Cuba/Soviet kind of socialist, but when people criticize "socialism" in general, it's the latter they are thinking of.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And Bernie isn't saying anything about stopping "Capitalism." That's what you all don't get - you think his plan is "communist" - but it is not.

Those successful countries who implement Dem Socialist policies (education and health care) are still CAPITALIST.

Why do you not get this, xuen? What will it take for you to realize and understand it????



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I understand completely.




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I hope so. I hope you're not just trolling me again.







 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join