Quote:
Originally Posted by sirio11
Are you guys going to continuing repeating nonsense until the end of times?
Lol with the DNC "machinery", what happened in 08, just didn't work then? and what about the RNC machinery, they didn't want Trump, not as evil as the DNC?
Rubio, Kasich had "better pollings" against Hillary, and Trump WON, what happened? your (lazy) poll theory just apply to Bernie/Hillary, but not Trump? You remember Hillary being ahead by a lot, right? like months CLOSER to the election than Bernie polls.
Let's try for one minute this novel and amazing new theory guys, that maybe, just maybe, she won the primary because more people voted for her?
Wow, incredible this theory explain a little better what happened, it explains what happened in 08 primaries (Obama won because he won more votes), it's a little simpler than "the election was stolen to my Messiah Bernie, because of evil DNC"
Hillary was the nominee because SHE WON MORE VOTES, you know, millions and millions more.
Liberals used to be the rational ones, the guys who could understand logic and science, now, over and over plenty of people in the left don't care anymore about facts and logic, and keep repeating debunked nonsense over and over, just incredible.
If you look at what actually happened in 2008 you'll see that the same thing happened in 2016. The superdelegate system made it virtually impossible for the "insurgent" candidate to win the party nomination.
In 2008 Hillary actually won the popular vote and lost the nomination.
I encourage you to check the math for yourself. Perhaps it would be an interesting new topic for this forum. If you assume initially that Candidate A will get ~2:1 of the superdelegates, how much of the popular vote in the Democrat Primary would Candidate B need to win to overcome the deficit?
(This doesn't even take into account the opaque nature of how pledged delegates are awarded. It appears to me that there is some other algorithm involved other than straight popular vote.)
Then consider that the primary system has discrete votes occurring over a period of months. Early primaries have significantly more effect then later ones. In 2016, Bernie supporters saw that while he was routinely getting enough support to be competitive in the popular vote, the delegate count even after the first 4 states, before Super Tuesday, made it obvious to any observer that he had very little chance of actually winning enough pledged delegates to overcome the superdelegates.
~~~~~
FWIW -- polls are not votes. It matters not at all whether Rubio or Kasich or Bernie had better polling. In the end, they did not have the actual votes. Or, the rules of the parties made it impossible for them to win even with a plurality of popular votes.
In fact, it is sometimes amusing, sometimes distressing, how much people put their faith in polls. There is almost no way to ground truth the poll until after an actual vote is taken. And even then, situations change, new information is processed. The poll -- a snapshot -- is at best beset with aliasing issues (a la Nyquist theorem), and at worst, is a fraud perpetrated to sway the public.