Total posts: 17,895
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yea but you have to understand behaviorally how he acted. He hasn't been lurky like his last game as scum, he's been helping town with his reads in general. He's also a noob. Why would he fake claim a Town RB? It makes no sense for him to do that knowing RB is a scummy role. If I were skittlez, I'd claim a BP or Drunk.
Lurkiness is associated with scuminess. It’s easy to catch up on that. It’s not a fake claim if he’s the town RB. It’s probably one of the safest claims to make. You’re not Skitlez tho lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I really don't see how a mislynch helps us here.
We’re going to be relying on NP actions from the night. Statistically more often than not you’re not going to have results that implicate scum. Having two flips helps us move forward with thematic analysis allowing us to connect two dead townies with our role or one dead townie and one dead scum. Otherwise we’re back to square one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Stop with the skittlez lynch. This is a blatent overreaction to lazy play by skittlez by adding wincon. You are geniunely surprised by this? Gtfo, this is a pathetic excuse for a lynch. Skittlez has been actively trying to help the town as well with reads after his stupid decision to claim early. There is so much shit wrong with this lynch
His role is more often than not scummy. He was forced to reveal his role because that’s his townplay and he has to guise it.
An inactive who is contributing nothing is a better lynch than lynching skittlez
I’m fine with either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
No. Mislynching someone because he hasn't posted less than 24 hours after replacing in is also counterproductive. Odds are he's town (per statistics)
Statistically we’re all just as likely to be town. He’s not special just cause he’s inactive.
and his absence only becomes a negative town utility if it affects our ability to get reads or votes. But nobody's even bothering to pressure others, so his absence on DP1 is just something for scum to focus on to distract the town into an easy mislynch target. You seem to be playing right into it or arguably even leading the way.
I’ve been vocal about this since the start of the DP about my two policy lynches. I’m not ashamed about leasing lynches DP1 because it gives us more information.
I'm not voting for warren unless he's inactive in DP2 and I'm not voting for Skittlez right now for aforementioned reasons. I wanted to pressure you for making a post that effectively said nothing (100% fluff) but everyone wanted to focus on the one person who isn't around, so. That's that. Day phase is over soon. We're not lynching today.
You never bothered responding to my “fluff” response. We have a bunch of people playing who sometimes make questionable decisions. I’m not going to name names. What’s wrong with giving a reminder? Why would you as town not want to just ensure optimal play? Are you relying on townies fucking up? Not lynching doesn’t give us info for thematic analysis tomorrow. You’re literally relying on night roles to even proceed the game cause we all saw how behavior analysis worked today.
Created:
Posted in:
Such a shame. Going into tomorrow with practically zero information for thematic analysis. Unfortunate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
@MisterChris
@BearMan
Let’s go. It’s either Skitlez or Warren
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
He replaced in when the day phase is nearly over
Then vote for Skitlez. Let’s go
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
The fact that nobody wants to vote for anyone except the one inactive player is pretty lame.
There isn’t a case on anyone except Warren or Skitlez. You seem to want neither. Can you at least agree to lynch one of the two because derailing a lynch is counterproductive at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
The goal is representation. Providing third parties with relevance is not the goal. What good leaders may have been elected through plurality voting in the past is not relevant. A broken clock is right twice a day, they say. Fluctuations in public opinion happen in both RCV and plurality voting. So, I don't see how that's factor in choosing between the two.
Sure but you’re preventing third party candidates from being relevant. If the status quo is the same as the alternative why change it? I’m telling you the system is working as it was intended. It has been every since the start of the nation not just twice. Your option reduces the prominence of third parties and write in campaigns. That’s undemocratic. Third parties are essential to democracy. Eliminating the spoiler effect does a disservice to third parties.
Let me phrase it this way. RCV would make my vote for Green Party useless even though it’s the party I support. My vote for Gary Johnson would be useless even though I’m voting him to show my dissatisfaction with the GOP. You’re eliminating the option for them to show dissatisfaction. Various Presidents won only with a plurality. Probably about a quarter to a third of elections have been that way. It’s how the system is designed. Your approval in California doesn’t matter to a guy in Wyoming. You’re trying to justify RCV as a method to get to popular vote lol. It’s quite funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
If the goal is to elect someone who best represents the majority of voters, then electing the person whose views are most consistent with those of the majority of voters would be ideal. With plurality voting, multiple candidates with roughly similar views may split the vote of the majority of voters who have similar views. Then, a third candidate who has roughly opposite viewpoints and significantly less support may win simply because the vote is not split between the third candidate and a fourth one. The end result is that the candidate who wins is the one who is the least representative of the voters. When the goal is to represent the voters, this is not ideal.
You’re once again not addressing the point I made. Public opinion can shift rapidly. Historically it has in both directions even if the person that wins gets a majority or a plurality. It’s an arbitrary snapshot of who should be President. Using your form of voting, Lincoln would not have been President and nor would Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton. You’re creating a method that puts a timestamp of approval ratings. How’s that better than any other poll for that matter lol. Third parties lose relevance in your model - it’s plain and simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I completely agree with Danielle's analysis of Pie's post btw
Good for you.
Created:
Posted in:
We should not be VTNL here folks. We don’t get any thematic analysis with only one person dead because of the NK. If Warren doesn’t come on in the next few hours, we should lynch him. At least we gain some information for tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Idk but Pie pushing on a lynch is sus too.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Say the conservative vote is split between 2 candidates and the liberal vote is united behind a single candidate. Even though most of the votes were for conservative candidates, the liberal candidate may end up winning anyway, even though one of the conservative candidates would better represent the voters.
Why is this assumed to be bad. Because of that system we had Presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, and even Clinton to an extent in his first term. Just because they don’t get a plurality doesn’t mean they’ll automatically bad. You’re making an assumption that isn’t true. Hoover won in a landslide but he is probably one of the worse Presidents. Plurality isn’t indicative of anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nonsense, you should be publicy ridiculed for confusing the word wise with smart.
Ya I’m just a dumb redneck deplorable. What do I know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
She’s too obsessed with listening to Joe’s media sycophants. If Joe Biden is the Democratic Party then he can’t even control his own Squad. I don’t give a shit what Joe says. I don’t give a shit what Trump says. Actions speak louder than words. Joe has done nothing to stop the violence. He can’t even control people in his own party. Joe Biden is the epitome of a career politician. 47 years of all talk and no action. 47 years of sweet talking voters and flipping as soon as he can to avoid scrutiny. No wonder black people don’t support him as much
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you are just going to pretend there were NO paid agitators in the crowd trying to get tear gassed for a photo op with CNN?
Of course not! CNN is an unbiased media source. They could never do that!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If people around me are throwing ice bottles at the police while I am peacefully protesting, I am gonna just go home before I get caught in the crossfire.Unless of course I am being paid to take tear gas to the face for a photo op with CNN to show how bad the Orangeman is.
No he’s a peaceful protestor who refused to leave after the police declared an unlawful assembly because of the violence. How dare you sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Joe and smart in the same sentence is all I need to know about your views and your positions. I urge you to vote for Joe Biden. I look forward to the liberal tears just like 2016. Even when all seems lost, Donald Trump comes back stronger than ever. Trump supporters will show up in droves to support him. Keep listening to the MSM and their polls. Underestimate him at your own peril.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
If you grow up believing you can’t do anything cause the system is rigged against you, you won’t do anything. But if you grow up believing that you as an individual can dictate your future, you can do anything.
Calling out Trump for the Charlottesville hoax but refusing to call out Biden for not condemning ANTIFA. Joe Biden doesn’t know what he’s doing. His healthcare policy will be a disaster. Green New Deal which he clearly supports cause he was midway defending it until he realized his mistake. He supports at least a partial defunding of the police. He plagiarizes Trump’s economic policies and coronavirus policies. He throws doubt on a vaccine before November 3rd, but it’s fine if it’s after. He calls black people super predators and says that black people aren’t black if they don’t support him. He gives a eulogy at the funeral of a former KKK leader. Hell his own VP calls him out for segregationist policies. But of course Trump is the reason for the coronavirus, Trump is racist. These people need to shut off the spinning and go look at the ground level facts and figures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
No, he did not say ANTIFA isn't real. During the debate he referenced what Trump's FBI Director said which is "We look at ANTIFA as more of an ideology or a movement than an organization." Biden probably shouldn't have said that, but at least it's not as utterly pathetic and nauseating as the president telling white supremacists to "stand back and stand by" like a fucking psychopath.
He literally said it’s a thought. And I don’t think you know what Christopher Wray said. He said the FBI has seen Antifa engage in "organized tactical activity" at the local and regional level. And Trump did condenen white supremacists, but because Chris Wallace and Joe Biden decided to interrupt him, you probably never heard him. Trump literally responded in the same way Chris Wallace asked him the question.
Lol he literally spearheaded the Crime Bill and consistently denounced the riots in 2020 since they started. The talking point that he "condones them" is made up Republican nonsense that conservatives are too stupid to fact check.
News flash it’s not 1994 and Joe has flip flopped on the issue just like he has been doing for the past 47 years. He has no principles. That’s the definition of a slimy politician.
Watch this: show me one clip or quote where Joe Biden (or Kamala Harris for that matter) condoned riots and violence. I'll wait.
Joe Biden called the people in Portland peaceful protestors. “They are brutally attacking peaceful protesters, including a US Navy veteran.” Joe Biden doesn’t have the balls to call his Democratic colleagues to end the violence by asking for the National Guard. It worked in Minneapolis cause news flash, law and order works. The political hack in Portland refuses federal help letting Portland burn for two months straight. If he was the law and order candidate he’d call his buddies and end it. He can’t do that cause he’s a puppet for the radical left who he needs to win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
All government unions are trash.
If Joe Biden supports law and order he’d be telling his Democratic buddies to call in the National Guard. Oh wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Lol @ not believing ANTIFA is real. You literally just made that up.
I didn’t say that - Joe did. “It’s just a thought.” Well who’s assaulting and rioting in Portland then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
He condemned riots and said there is no place for violence multiple times.
Hmm cause the polls said it was a losing issue. He couldn’t name a single police organization that supported him. He doesn’t think ANTIFA is real. He’s a fraud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
This whole post is useless lol. There is no negative town utility to a townie RB if the RB simply doesn't use their role (or uses it effectively). They can waive it so I don't think that role is inherently anti-town. I also happen to believe the role claim for now.
His role is more often than not used for scum. In a role madness game there’s more likely than not a Roleblocker. Connect those two and voila. You also have to consider if there’s both a town and a scum roleblocker than he’s an easy mislynch opportunity.
Stating there is either a miller or no miller is... obvious.And I don't see why you would advise a cop that there may be an affiliation manipulator. Duh? Is this a way of saying if you are investigated scum, you want to blame a framer? I just don't see the point of this post. If nobody wants to pressure Supa I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in pressuring you until That1 comes on.
Just something to be mindful of for a possible cop. I don’t see harm in reinforcing it cause we have people who make questionable decisions sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Why do you think that there's a miller?
Where did I say a Miller exists? I’m making assumptions that a Miller doesn’t exist cause no one has confessed - unless it’s That1.
Created:
Posted in:
My policy lynches are That1 and Skitlez right now. The former for inactivity and the latter for negative town utility. No one has claimed Miller yet, so I’m assuming either That1 is Miller or a Miller doesn’t exist. If a cop exists then I’d advise them to be mindful of a a mafia affiliated affiliation manipulator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the reason we have a two party system is because we have plurality voting. no one is talking about banning third parties. alternative voting systems encourage more parties.u keep misrepresenting my position, and you keep repeating things i've debunked.
I don’t know what you’re advocating for? Are you advocating for RCV?
what do you think of the fact that a large majority of the globe have systems that are not plurality voting?what do you think of the opening sentence of the article i cited?"Any academic will tell you that our choose-one voting method (plurality voting) is a terrible, terrible voting method."i think it's accurate.the consensus of the planet, and objective minded people, is my way of thinking. close minded people cling to the old way of doing things, they cling to a broken system.
Overall our nation is better than any other country lol. I could care less what other countries do. If Lincoln wins with less than 50% of the vote I’m fine with that. I don’t see what your problem is with people who win with less than 50% cause it doesn’t dictate whether they’re good or bad lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why not?
Cause their votes get allocated to someone they consider inferior and the final tally just shows the top two. Take a look at ME-2 in 2018. Golden won because of RCV cause Poliquin was ahead before that. No one remembers where the votes came from for Golden from TPs cause they become irrelevant. Meanwhile you look at 2016. We know Jill Stein and the Green Party cost Hillary Clinton.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
I would imagine that instant runoff voting would increase the probability of GoP victories since a lot more conservatives vote Libertarian than liberals vote Green. Or, at least, that's what happened in 2016. I think Maine is doing it for 2020. There will probably be data from Maine to assess the probable impact such a voting system would have on the current balance of power.
RCV is undemocratic. Third parties can’t act as spoilers under that system and a result, their positions can’t impact the election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you have it ass backwards. where do you think the two party system came from? maybe two parties is isn't what could be in theory, but for practical purposes, the only reason we have a two party system is because plurality voting is anti democracy.
Bruh there were multiple people running for the Presidency from the same party. You’re advocating for a two party system by getting rid of third parties. Plurality voting allows for minor parties to have a say. It’s literally Civics101. Banning minor parties is inherently anti-democratic. Third parties have always existed. From the inception to antebellum, to reconstruction, to progressive, to WWI, post WWII.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's such a stupid system, that i distrust the motives of those who support it. maybe their favorite candidate has no chance otherwise? maybe they're just ignorant of the vast number of alternative voting systems? who knows.
How about, it’s undemocratic? Let whoever wants to run, run. It’s the way it’s been since the founding of the nation. It’s how Lincoln and Wilson were elected. They were historically good Presidents. Democracy itself is inherently good. The outcomes can be good or bad, just like anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
approval ratings can be determined with a vote, same as any other system, at a voting booth. i dont think people are stupid. i think the plurality voting is stupid. the process is stupid, because it, and not the candidates or the people, chooses the winner oftentimes.
Why is that so wrong? Was Lincoln a bad President? Was Wilson a bad President? If people are willing to put their own heads out there and want to risk their political careers, that’s their prerogative. What you’re talking about my friend is code for popular vote which in itself is a disaster. Third parties are an essential part of democracy whether you like it or not.
so you're cool with kasich running and stealing votes from trump? you're cool with the libertarian is is already running getting a better shot at winning by getting on the debate stage and such? you're cool with a bunch of conservatives running and making it so none of them can win, simply because of the process?
I don’t have to like it for it to be democratic. Sure my party will suffer. That’s fine with me as long as democracy is upheld. If the GOP did what the DNC did to Bernie to Trump I would be mad. Democracy is inherently good whether you like it or not. Me preferring a certain outcome is my personal opinion but my core belief is that it is democratic. You on the other hand want to eliminate an essential part of democracy so it benefits your party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
no one is talking about banning third parties. i'm talking about approval rating voting, where the person with the highest approval rating wins, or goes to a run off. this would encourage more people to run, would encourage more third and fourth etc parties.it would discourage radicals, it would better unity the country. it would better capture the will of the people. it wouldn't allow third parties to stop the most popular person from winning.
No. Why can’t you just let the people vote. Do you think Americans are morons. Why should the person with the highest approval rating win? You c any even accurately gauge that because a sample of 1000 isn’t even necessarily representative of the nation. It’s ignorant. The Constitution is very clear about the requirement to run for President and how the President wins. Your requirement is arbitrary and is fair to people who are willing to kiss peoples asses
Created:
Posted in:
Lincoln and Wilson are some the people who are regarded as good presidents. They only won because there were third parties involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
kasich or rubio or someone like that should run as a third party, just to split the conservative vote. see how you guys like those apples.
They have the right to. But they’re not idiots. They know their political careers will be over if they do. And we already have Jo Jorgensen taking some GOP support. Banning third parties is anti-thetical to a democracy dude. It’s really not that hard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even if it's the Bernie Marxists getting cancelled by the DNC elites, the loss of Democracy is a far more disastrous thing, and it shows with the violence and the riots.
I’m not a fan of Bernie Bros, but I sympathize with them. Intervention by the party is inherently undemocratic. They don’t even know if Bernie would’ve lost. Trump was sure to lose remember?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
ok here's a hypothetical. trump, kasich, and john doe are running in the general election. doe is a moderate. sixty percent of the electorate is conservative and trump has high approval ratings and john doe has low approval ratings. the final tally of the vote was trump got 35 percent of the vote, kasich got 25% of the vote, and john doe got 40% of the vote. so, even though most of the electorate is conservative and even though trump has high approval ratings.... you think john doe should win because he has the highest plurality, and the conservative vote being split doesn't matter, and his low approval rating doesn't matter? you think all this is the superior outcome, given your beloved plurality voting process was adhered to?you think trump should lose in this case even though he's the most liked and only lost due to a split vote?
Yes, that’s how democracy works. I don’t have to like it, but that’s how democracy is supposed to work. If he wins with the plurality, he wins. It’s how it’s worked since the inception of the country.
In fact this is pretty much the scenario that happened in 1860. Lincoln won a plurality against a split pro-slavery ticket. And Lincoln’s approval was abysmal to say the very least. How did he turn out?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
why won't you just admit that you think that sometimes people with low approval ratings should be elected president?
I do. Cause they don’t mean anything. Prime example is Lincoln. He promoted democracy even though he was hated. Approval ratings don’t mean shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
electing presidents with low approval ratings is bad for democracy
Oh ya? By your logic, Abraham Lincoln shouldn’t have won because he didn’t get a single vote in the South. Look how democracy fared under his administration. He literally freed the slaves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the only conclusion that can be drawn, is that you think people with low approval ratings should sometimes be nominated or elected president. i think that should never happen. you care too much about process even when the process is retarded and makes no sense, and subverts the will of the people. you are stupid for thinking such a system has any value at all, and you are way out of line and immoral for subverting the will of the people.
No, I’m saying they should have a fair shot at winning. It’s not your job nor the party’s job of saying so and so is unelectable, therefore we’re gonna interfere to help someone. That’s inherently undemocratic.
bernie didn't get shafted in the process. in a head to head, bernie lost solidly. the guys that were asked to leave the race may have got shafted from the process to make their fight, but they weighed their options themselves. the only reason that even happened is because stupid people like the above posters think people with low approval ratings should become president, and they wont support changing the system.
The people that were asked to leave were on the behest of the Democratic Party establishment. It’s a corrupt bargain. Drop out so we can let Joe win and we’ll give you a cabinet position. That’s the definition of a corrupt bargain. If electability mattered to people they wouldn’t have been choosing other moderates over Joe, but they did. People care about the person, not some bogus metric created by the party that isn’t even right.
so you think it's a smart process, when a third party challenges the two leading candidates, and the most popular candidate loses, because the third party skimmed votes off their top but was an unpopular person? how much sense does that make? wow, you guys are stupid. trump supporters, who would have thought otherwise.
Yes. Third parties are essential to democracy. Even if they shave off votes, it brings attention to their cause. It shows that Hillary Clinton was unliked and she was nominated anyways. By not allowing third parties, you’re inherently advocating for a two party system which is undemocratic in itself. Strom Thurmond and Lisa Murkowski both won write in campaigns and George Wallace actually got electoral votes. Why tf should you decide who can or cannot run. You’re setting arbitrary methods that’s are clearly unconstitutional.
you think people like hillary should have won the nomination. that is never acceptable. she had low approval ratings, but she fulfilled meeting the expectations of your stupid process that was involved, plurality voting.
Approval ratings don’t mean shit. And there’s nothing about them in the Constitution. Preventing third parties from running is inherently undemocratic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i support the will of the people. you dont
You support interference based on something that isn’t set in stone. You nor I know whether Bernie could’ve won.
Created:
Posted in:
why is it better for someone like bernie to win if they have lower approval ratings? i dont have the stats for approval ratings, but if joe got twice the vote in a head to head, he must have higher approval ratings. you are pushing for plurality voting, where the largest faction wins. how is this better just because it's a free for all? it's a stupid system. if we dont switch to the 'approval rating' voting system like i advocate, i dont see any harm in influencing the vote so that the most popular person wins. you do realize that hillary only won four years ago because of plurality voting? trump and hilary both were very unpopular, they had no business winning, and neither did bernie.
That’s not how it works dude. You give everyone an equal shot at winning and then let the people decide. You let the candidates bring up the issue of electability and approvability. The DNC nor the RNC should affect the outcome. Their job is to provide a platform for the ideas of each individual. Your solution is inherently undemocratic. Plurality voting gives candidates a chance. If they’re good candidates they can obtain the support of other individuals - besides, that’s their job: to gain support among the populace for their policies. No one likes Joe or his policies. They’re only voting for him cause they don’t like Trump. You can see that in every poll. Allowing people to run is a fundamental part of democracy. The DNC saying oh you can’t win cause you’re unelectable is immoral and outright wrong in some cases as we saw with Trump
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Right, they didnt just manipulate the outcome to defeat Bernie, they essentially took the voice away from a very large coalition.
It literally takes away the ability to win if you have the entire establishment behind you. Literally just like before the primary system. Party officials had a closed door conference and selected their nominee. It’s corrupt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you concede that joe would win against bernie head to head, how exactly is it rigged? you mention vague notions of the DNC supporting joe, but so what? even if they should be neutral but aren't, it's still joe getting the votes himself. voters dont care much for what the DNC thinks. at least not enough voters care tot make a difference, especially when joe has twice as many votes as bernie. you also act like bernie may have been better for the general election.... based on what? joe gets moderate conservatives, who would jump at the chance to vote for trump over bernie. you have some points that bernie has advantages, but you make no valid point that he'd be better off in a general election... if twice as many liberals in the primary voted for joe over bernie, do you really think bernie is going to peal off more conservatives than joe? you're not even being rational at this point.... u r just using fuzzy thinking, the fuzzy thinking that is always present when peeps start talking about how the election is rigged. u know when u hear that, that all thinking has stopped in that individual, cause they r brainwashed.
Why don’t you let the people decide. Why should the Democratic establishment decide who will be better off in the general? It was widely acknowledged that Marco Rubio would do better than Trump in the general, but the RNC never intervened. You’re justifying a corrupt interference, taking away the primary process just so your preferred candidate would win. That’s literally undemocratic. The DNC should’ve been unbiased like the RNC. Otherwise you’re literally back to a secret door session where the party chooses the person like back in the 1900s.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I also do not have a win-con. I had to clarify the win con with Bullish just to be safe. I’m comfortable with having Skitlez as a policy lynch. His role can be negative town utility and it’s a pretty safe claim for a real mafia roleblocker.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
when joe and bernie were head to head, joe got two thirds of vote and bernie got only a third. how does this translate into a rigged election? how does this fit your theory that bernie was more popular?
See that’s the thing. If it happened naturally I’d support you. But the DNC purposefully interfered making it undemocratic.
I never said Bernie would’ve won in a head to head be Joe. I just said his coalition is broader than Joe. Plus, Joe’s voter base comes from the South which is technically irrelevant cause Trump was gonna win there anyways. Bernie does better with Hispanics. Better with young voters. Better with white voters. Moderately well with African Americans. 1:2 margin.
The problem here is that the DNC interfered making the process undemocratic because they threw their support to one person early on. Kinda anti-thetical to the name of the party.
Created: