2nd amendment only apply to white people?

Why is the matter of if he had a gun or not even relevant? Isn’t NC an open carry state?

but they have gained the pedestrian safety, headlight, taillamp, bumper, crash structures, visibility, and everything else that the governments of the world have mandated to save the earth, polar bears, and everything else that was being destroyed by the timeless beauty and noise of a classic Ferrari 250.

You’re certainly free to discuss her success in the primaries. What you shouldn’t do is:

In terms of actual Primaries/Caucuses won and delegates won. In terms of delegates, which let’s remember is what actually decides a nomination, he beat her by roughly the same percentage he beat McCain in the popular vote in the General.

Do you hold elected office after winning a primary? No. That’s why they have different names. They’re not even binding. I got the memo for that somewhere around the time I got the one telling me that Cats and Dogs were similar, but ultimately different.

She didn’t win an election. She won 28 primaries. With no decent opponents. And the full backing of what should be an impartial National Committee. And a huge edge in fundraising. And the support of virtually the entire party establishment. That’s effectively one step up from a participation medal.

Which is moronic. Her numbers were always stupid close given how bad he is. But they went with her anyway. Because... ?

No, that’s not what I said. You’re just trying to frame what I said as “Trump vs. Clinton or Sanders” for some reason. In my first post I said “That Hillary was a bad strategic choice” without any mention of opponent and in my second I said that choosing Hillary increased the chances of Republicans winning. Remember…

No, he most certainly was not going to have the same problem with non-Democrats. He was going to have an entirely different problem. With Sanders and centrist independents it’s “I don’t think I can support his policies”. With Clinton and the same independents it’s “I don’t like her”. Those are two very different…

Hypothetical Sanders attack ads beat actual Clinton garbage polling numbers in your mind? This is why we are where we are.

Sanders failed in a primary. I’m saying a problem Hillary was always going to face was her appeal to people who aren’t Democrats and you keep coming back with “Yeah, but Democrats voted for her”. Unfortunately she’s running for President of the United States and not Grand Poobah of the Democratic Party.

A cynical read of why it might be possible for Bernie to do better against a general election candidate than Clinton (against which he lost) would be to look at how the two candidates supporters have framed themselves. During the primary, Bernie was associated with idealism, while Clinton was associated with…

I think there are any number of Democrats who’d be doing better than Hillary right now who would have been wisely scared off by the odds stacked against them in a primary.

Yes, and if there’s one thing this election has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it’s that in the general people were just going to be laser focused on a Candidate’s ability to be an effective president.

It’s not baseless speculation. It’s not cold hard fact either but all the polls said that Sanders fared better vs. Trump than Hillary. Favorable +/- numbers too.

Sure, Jeb.

By over 10 million? I thought Clinton won by over 300 billion votes?

You know what though? People can shit on Bernie Bros or 3rd party voters all they want, they can talk about how fucked up a Trump presidency will be and get as outraged at the prospect of people not voting for Hillary as the safer saner option and everything but...

If the election were held today, Donald Trump would apparently win roughly as many electoral votes as Hillary Clinton — who held a commanding lead in early August and seemed to be closing off all possible Trump routes to 270 electoral votes.