Maybe we should just elect Trump president

Julian, wrote:
Relaxer wrote:
NPR doesn't beg for money, your local public radio station begs for money. Which is appropriate because that is their most important source of funding. NPR is funded by the federal government, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as by membership and program subscription fees paid by public radio stations and producers.
And Public Radio International owns both, yes?


Space wrote:
What state was Bernie the governor of?

sorry my bad, knew I should have looked that up before posting

Mayor of Burlington 80-89
U.S. House of Representatives  90-07
US Senate 07-present
Found a good re-release for cassette store day
Julian, wrote:
Sidehatch wrote:
Jules, thanks for switching teams and giving bernie the win in MI

People do understand Hillary increased her delegate lead last night, right?


Nor do they understand that Michigan is not a winner take all state.

Michigan Delegate count:

Sanders 69
Clinton 61
Uncommitted 17
vansmack wrote:
Nor do they understand that Michigan is not a winner take all state.

Michigan Delegate count:

Sanders 69
Clinton 61
Uncommitted 17
If there's anything I've learned from politics, its never let facts get in the way of a good narrative.
the real news is that Trump could take out Hillary in Michigan….they just don't like her and her record on trade is and will be a liability there…which is why even if she is winning in terms of delegates her losing to Sanders in MI is a big deal

Too bad Sanders supporters live in LALALAND where continuing to weaken her, exposing her weaknesses etc is good

I put on my Hillary Clinton bumper sticker last week and that is who I am voting for but people that call Trump supporters lunatics aren't doing too much thinking….
Donald wrote:
but people that call Trump supporters lunatics aren't doing too much thinking….
Well, they're definitely lunatics but for completely different reasons than you're referencing.
Julian, wrote:
Donald wrote:
but people that call Trump supporters lunatics aren't doing too much thinking….
Well, they're definitely lunatics but for completely different reasons than you're referencing.



something is happening but you don't know what it is….do you..Mr. Julian..


tan tan ta ta
tan tan ta ta
Donald wrote:
Mr. Julian..
It's Mr. Vanderbilt, thank you very much.
Julian, wrote:
Donald wrote:
Mr. Julian..
It's Mr. Vanderbilt, thank you very much.


doesn't fit the parody of "Ballad of a Thin Man"..sorry
Julian, wrote:
vansmack wrote:
Nor do they understand that Michigan is not a winner take all state.

Michigan Delegate count:

Sanders 69
Clinton 61
Uncommitted 17
If there's anything I've learned from politics, its never let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

While I live my life by julians words here…no one ever said that MI is not a winner take all
but you still have someone who got more votes and getting headlines
Sidehatch wrote:
no one ever said that MI is not a winner take all
but you still have someone who got more votes and getting headlines
The narrative I'm refuting is the idea this is a game changed in the Dem nomination race. For all the headlines, Sanders' delegate math got even worse for him last night.
Julian, wrote:
Sidehatch wrote:
no one ever said that MI is not a winner take all
but you still have someone who got more votes and getting headlines
The narrative I'm refuting is the idea this is a game changed in the Dem nomination race. For all the headlines, Sanders' delegate math got even worse for him last night.

not by the amount that the pundits were suggesting
this is what they were predicting
Sanders 40
Clinton 90

and this is what happened
Sanders 69
Clinton 61

not sure why you guys can't concede that is pretty dramatic shift from Tuesday morning's predictions

that he was behind 25 delegates in Old Miss…that was a thumping and expected

But there were only 136 delegates up for grabs yesterday

now on 3/15 590 are up for grabs…that's almost exactly the same as Super Tuesday

You can't tell me that these wins and good press are not making this a lot harder fight for Hill
and the Sandman could do well in all these states

RCP avg was hill up 21 points in MI
and it ended up being dead even

He's behind 20-30 points in all the upcoming states…but who is to say he doesn't do the same thing as MI

I think the game has changed and you guys are just not admitting it
Sidehatch wrote:

and this is what happened
Sanders 69
Clinton 61

But there were only 136 delegates up for grabs yesterday



No.  There were 166 delegates up for grabs yesterday.

130 in Michigan, 36 in Mississippi.

Clinton won 91.
Sanders won 74.

That's what happened.
there you go with math and facts
honestly looked in a few different places for the counts and got different answers
I went to http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results and just added up and got 156
not sure why it's 10 off??


but the JIST of my statement is the same, you all seem to focus on a error in my statements rather than actually respond

It's ok you know Hill is tanking and you can't take it and figure best tactic is to point out where I made a mistake

Good news…I've got lots more mistakes coming, so you'll have plenty to work with


I still don't think Sanders can do it.
One thing that does scare me is a lot of Democrats don't like Hillary
and a lot of conservatives (oddly) like sanders
My opinion is that it doesn't matter who get's the R next to their name…the person with the D is going to win
Sidehatch wrote:
It's ok you know Hill is tanking
She's 18% ahead of the pace she needs to be on to win the nomination.
well.. as a HRC supporter I find the results in Michigan discouraging…. even if she won the most delegates last night and is still on track to be the nominee she is meeting steep resistance…from a 74 year old socialist..


she is only 6 years younger
tanking might have been hyperbole…but she is not casually walking her way to the nom

but I need to just drop it as you guys keep parsing my comments and not admit this has become a fight not a cake walk
Sidehatch wrote:
she is only 6 years younger
tanking might have been hyperbole…but she is not casually walking her way to the nom

but I need to just drop it as you guys keep parsing my comments and not admit this has become a fight not a cake walk


I think I did admit that.. I said "meeting steep resistance"? I thought i was actually defending your point! It is sad when you try to agree with someone and they assume its an argument…

I happen to think 68 or 69 is very different from 74… the guy would be 78 at the end of his first term? 82 at end of second…..to me that is too old..sorry… I'm not picking on Bernie for his age… by 2008 McCain was too old also.. Reagan was certainly too old by his second term (suffering Alzheimers probably)…