POTUS Election thread

[Viking]

Looks to me like Nebraska is Berning, though no official confirmation yet.

[Greyblades]

So I havent seen the latest debate but considering the gif that was made in the hours after it ended...



I'm guessing Trump wasnt quite stumped?

[Tuuvi]

Did you know Mexico has a democratic government that Mexicans can participate in. Did you know that (like Trump says) Carrier among other companies have moved their production into Mexico.

Your view of Mexicans is very condescending, as if they have no agency and no real choice but to live in their current conditions. In fact, Mexico is suffering in part due to their own choices. Some heroic and commendable (like the government deciding to wage war against the cartels) others, not so much.

In a country as corrupt and socially stratified as Mexico the idea that the millions of dirt poor people living there have any say in how their country is governed is a bit of a joke. I also think that even in a country like the US the ability to cast a vote doesn't really translate into having any real political power.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I also think that even in a country like the US the ability to cast a vote doesn't really translate into having any real political power.

The whole history of the US proves this wrong. This election is proving you wrong.

When you give up on your government, that's a choice to have a government that gives up on you.

[Viking]

After yesterday's results, I make to the two following observations/predictions:

1. Kasich may outlast Rubio, and may become a viable threat to Cruz
2. Hillary's southern states are almost spent; things may start to stall or go downhill for her soon

[Sarmatian]

There are two big states left, New York and California. We'll see what happens there. There are arguments for Hillary and Bernie in both of them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There are two big states left, New York and California. We'll see what happens there. There are arguments for Hillary and Bernie in both of them.

New York will go to Hillary. Anyone who thinks Bernie has a chance is blatantly ignoring the hundreds of superdelegates already pledged to her.

[Sarmatian]

Superdelegates can change their minds, but I do agree that Hillary is the likely winner.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Superdelegates can change their minds, but I do agree that Hillary is the likely winner.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. If these superdelegates weren't already under Hillary's thumb for political and monetary reasons, they would have at least waited until super Tuesday before pledging themselves.

[Hooahguy]

If these superdelegates weren't already under Hillary's thumb for political and monetary reasons,

I just love how you think that just because someone doesn't support Sanders they obviously must be paid off in some way by Hillary.

[Viking]

Anyone who thinks Bernie has a chance is blatantly ignoring the hundreds of superdelegates already pledged to her.

They keep open the possibility that these individuals, in sum, will not block the popular vote.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I just love how you think that just because someone doesn't support Sanders they obviously must be paid off in some way by Hillary.

I just love how you think that 200+ people somehow decided on their own accord that Hillary deserved the nomination before primary season even started.

[a completely inoffensive name]

They keep open the possibility that these individuals, in sum, will not block the popular vote.

The whole point of superdelegates is to block the popular vote.

[Viking]

The whole point of superdelegates is to block the popular vote.

It does provide the party with a limited ability to block the popular vote; but it doesn't mean that such a desire exists for a given scenario, much less that they will actually use the ability should such a desire exist (it's not without its risks).

[a completely inoffensive name]

It does provide the party with a limited ability to block the popular vote; but it doesn't mean that such a desire exists for a given scenario, much less that they will actually use the ability should such a desire exist (it's not without its risks).

If 90% of democratic superdelegates support you, you are already 30% of the way to the nomination before a single vote is cast. I wouldn't call that limited. But yes, as I was just telling tuuvi, the great thing about America is that if the people want to elect someone against the wishes of establishment, we get our wish.

[Sarmatian]

In theory, yes. In practice, no. If these superdelegates weren't already under Hillary's thumb for political and monetary reasons, they would have at least waited until super Tuesday before pledging themselves.

If Sanders outperforms Hillary, some may be swayed.

I just love how you think that just because someone doesn't support Sanders they obviously must be paid off in some way by Hillary.

Well, one would have to wonder... The base is split almost evenly, while the party leadership supports one candidate almost exclusively, even though the other candidate has better chances against eventual republican nominee, according to the early polls.

[Viking]

If 90% of democratic superdelegates support you, you are already 30% of the way to the nomination before a single vote is cast. I wouldn't call that limited. But yes, as I was just telling tuuvi, the great thing about America is that if the people want to elect someone against the wishes of establishment, we get our wish.

It's limited in the sense that a sufficiently popular candidate cannot be stopped that way. Sanders is not such a candidate.

[Hooahguy]

I just love how you think that 200+ people somehow decided on their own accord that Hillary deserved the nomination before primary season even started.

You mean support their party candidate and not support an independent who is just piggybacking off of DNC resources while providing little if any down ticket support for other Democrat candidates? Shocker.

If Sanders outperforms Hillary, some may be swayed.

Except that hes not.

Well, one would have to wonder... The base is split almost evenly, while the party leadership supports one candidate almost exclusively, even though the other candidate has better chances against eventual republican nominee, according to the early polls.

See above. Bernie has done very little to support the Democrats, especially for down ticket support. He even said in 2011 that the party should have a primary, implying that Obama had shifted too far to the right. Now why would anyone expect the party leadership to support someone who said something like that. His "political revolution" is a fantasy at best, relying on blue voters to sweep out GOP candidates en masse which everyone knows wont happen because blue turnout for midterm elections is always very lackluster. And when the Political Revolution^TM doesnt happen you know that Bernie will just whine about the oligarchy or whatever.

EDIT: also head to head polling this early is meaningless. Everyone knows this and so should you.

[Sarmatian]

See above. Bernie has done very little to support the Democrats, especially for down ticket support. He even said in 2011 that the party should have a primary, implying that Obama had shifted too far to the right. Now why would anyone expect the party leadership to support someone who said something like that. His "political revolution" is a fantasy at best, relying on blue voters to sweep out GOP candidates en masse which everyone knows wont happen because blue turnout for midterm elections is always very lackluster. And when the Political Revolution^TM doesnt happen you know that Bernie will just whine about the oligarchy or whatever.

EDIT: also head to head polling this early is meaningless. Everyone knows this and so should you.

Why shouldn't they? Pledging to Hillary that early means it was never a choice. The political establishment didn't weigh on a candidate, they presented a candidate. Not to mention how Hillary was attacking Obama when it was politically convenient, and on a much bigger scale than Sanders.

You may disagree with Bernie, and his plans my prove to be impossible to implement in the end, but he is a person who definitely isn't corrupt, who has long fought for what he believed in congress. Such a person most certainly isn't whiny.

[Hooahguy]

Why shouldn't they? Pledging to Hillary that early means it was never a choice. The political establishment didn't weigh on a candidate, they presented a candidate. Not to mention how Hillary was attacking Obama when it was politically convenient, and on a much bigger scale than Sanders.

You may disagree with Bernie, and his plans my prove to be impossible to implement in the end, but he is a person who definitely isn't corrupt, who has long fought for what he believed in congress. Such a person most certainly isn't whiny.

The bloodbath that was the 2008 primary season is long behind us, and largely forgotten, and they have clearly buried the hatchet. Hillary has been setting up for this election since 2008 and has the resources and clout to actually run the campaign. I would imagine that she is not the ideal candidate, but considering it was a very weak field this year, was there a choice? Yeah Hillary may not be ideal for the DNC but who will they go with? An independent senator from Vermont who has been on record saying how bad the democrats are since they are "beholden to corporate interests"? A person who essentially called for unseating Obama? A person who will be clobbered in the generals? He might win against Trump, but against anyone else? He would be crushed. HRC is a much safer choice. Yeah shes been battered around, but shes been battered around for decades. The current attacks are nothing new. Now believe me, I am not HRC supporter but compared to Bernie? To pick Bernie over HRC would be a really stupid choice for the DNC.

Sure Bernie might be an honest guy who sticks to his guns, but I think that the DNC leadership wants a more pragmatic approach when it comes to the presidency. Idealism tends to stall good governance as we see with the Tea Party. Bernie has a poor record of working with others who do not align with his beliefs. Basically he has become the Tea Party of the Left. That is not something I want in a president, and I do not blame the DNC at all for not supporting him at all.

[Sarmatian]

The bloodbath that was the 2008 primary season is long behind us, and largely forgotten, and they have clearly buried the hatchet. Hillary has been setting up for this election since 2008 and has the resources and clout to actually run the campaign.

I do remember there were rows even after, but I may be wrong.

I would imagine that she is not the ideal candidate, but considering it was a very weak field this year, was there a choice? Yeah Hillary may not be ideal for the DNC but who will they go with? An independent senator from Vermont who has been on record saying how bad the democrats are since they are "beholden to corporate interests"? A person who essentially called for unseating Obama?

He has called Hillary beholden to corporate interests. And she is, like most of the politicians everywhere. It is rare to find the one who isn't.

He didn't call for unseating Obama. He wanted to keep the pressure on a president whom he saw as too accommodating to republicans. And suddenly Sanders is a problem? A few years ago, democrats were running away from Obama like he had the plague. It' was like they were competing who can ignore him the most.

A person who will be clobbered in the generals? He might win against Trump, but against anyone else? He would be crushed. HRC is a much safer choice. Yeah shes been battered around, but shes been battered around for decades. The current attacks are nothing new. Now believe me, I am not HRC supporter but compared to Bernie? To pick Bernie over HRC would be a really stupid choice for the DNC.

And you base that on? I'm pretty sure both would win against either Trump or Cruz. Besides Kasich, who is pretty much out, all republican candidates are pathetic.

Sure Bernie might be an honest guy who sticks to his guns, but I think that the DNC leadership wants a more pragmatic approach when it comes to the presidency. Idealism tends to stall good governance as we see with the Tea Party. Bernie has a poor record of working with others who do not align with his beliefs. Basically he has become the Tea Party of the Left. That is not something I want in a president, and I do not blame the DNC at all for not supporting him at all.

The major difference being that he's not insane.
During this campaign he has shown he is above dirty tricks. He could have gone after Hillary much harder, as she is a political opportunist.

There's still a lot of time, but a safe bet at this point is Hillary in the White House for the next 8 years. Those 8 years will pass and people will realize that nothing changed.

If Bernie gets in there, he may very well fail. In fact, that's the most likely option, but Hillary won't even try.

[Kralizec]

What exactly makes you angry about what I said?
That I have sympathy for people who were born in squalor, corruption and violence?
Wouldn't that include a whole lot of our own ancestors?

I'm not angry, just irritated.

I'm sympathetic to actual refugees, broadly speaking that means people who have good reason to fear for their lives. People who leave their country because of poverty or corruption I can understand, but I don't feel compelled to accept them. I dislike it when people try to blur the distinction between these categories, for example by repeatedly emphasising how poor Mexico or Africa is or by inventing terms like "economic refugees". The reason why people try to climb fences at Ceuta and Melilla is not because they're in iminent danger of starving, but because most of them at that point have already spent hundreds or even thousends of dollars to get there in pursuit of a fantasy. Building fences or even concrete walls to stop them from entering is not xenophobic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The whole point of superdelegates is to block the popular vote.

At least to attenuate it. The Dems have set up their party system so that, in the event of a 3-way close split such as may be looming for the GOP, the party leadership at the state and national levels have a significant bloc of direct votes in order to sway the outcome. In a two-way race, it allows them to stifle a 2nd place candidate who continues to lag behind the front-runnner and to do so before the convention in order to minimize additional primary campaign expenses and/or any efforts to tarnish the presumptive nominee for the general election.

[Hooahguy]

He has called Hillary beholden to corporate interests. And she is, like most of the politicians everywhere. It is rare to find the one who isn't.

He didn't call for unseating Obama. He wanted to keep the pressure on a president whom he saw as too accommodating to republicans. And suddenly Sanders is a problem? A few years ago, democrats were running away from Obama like he had the plague. It' was like they were competing who can ignore him the most.

Calling for a primary for the 2012 election is almost the same thing in the eyes of the party. And they certainly were not running away from him in 2012. Maybe in 2014, but that was a different story showing failures across the board.

And you base that on? I'm pretty sure both would win against either Trump or Cruz. Besides Kasich, who is pretty much out, all republican candidates are pathetic.

Based on what Ive seen of the American voter. They vote on fear. Its the sad truth. Considering you can paint quite the picture that Sanders is trying to bring communism to America, imagine how they will vote. The GOP has purposely been avoiding attacking Sanders at any length. Its not because he cant be attacked. Perhaps its because they dont see him as a threat, but do you think that means they dont have the ammo to use against him? When it comes time to unleash hell against Sanders, they undoubtedly will. And the youth vote is, as Ive said here multiple times, unreliable to say the least.

The major difference being that he's not insane.
During this campaign he has shown he is above dirty tricks. He could have gone after Hillary much harder, as she is a political opportunist.

I dunno, his idea of staffing the Federal Reserve with farmers is pretty insane.

And he has gone after HRC, just not for the same things that the GOP is. The GOP is doing all their work for him and going after her, he goes after her for not being progressive enough. And then you have his surrogates and supporters making sexist and sometimes racist remarks against Hillary and her supporters. He say he is above dirty tricks, but to me its just words like any other politician.

There's still a lot of time, but a safe bet at this point is Hillary in the White House for the next 8 years. Those 8 years will pass and people will realize that nothing changed.

If Bernie gets in there, he may very well fail. In fact, that's the most likely option, but Hillary won't even try.

No, he will fail. Look at what he proposes. Now look at the hold that the GOP has on Congress. Look at how much support Bernie has given to local Democrats (hint: little if any). Look at how much Hillary has given to support local democrats (a ton more). Now guess who will have more success getting stuff done? You cant get everything you want done with executive orders and those that have been passed face challenges in court. Nobody thinks that HRC will solve all the issues, the reason why the DNC is so heavily supporting her is because the party sees her as a pragmatist whereas Bernie (besides the damage hes done to the party) is an idealist, and idealists do not make for good governance, especially in the Executive office.

[Viking]

Calling Maine for Sanders.

[Husar]

I'm not angry, just irritated.

I'm sympathetic to actual refugees, broadly speaking that means people who have good reason to fear for their lives. People who leave their country because of poverty or corruption I can understand, but I don't feel compelled to accept them. I dislike it when people try to blur the distinction between these categories, for example by repeatedly emphasising how poor Mexico or Africa is or by inventing terms like "economic refugees". The reason why people try to climb fences at Ceuta and Melilla is not because they're in iminent danger of starving, but because most of them at that point have already spent hundreds or even thousends of dollars to get there in pursuit of a fantasy. Building fences or even concrete walls to stop them from entering is not xenophobic.

I mostly agree with you in fact. I don't recall ever using the term economic refugees and as I said, I also do not think we should have to accept everyone who comes here. What I fo not like is the opposite rhetoric where lines are also blurred and every refugee or migrant is suspected to be a potential criminal. And then there is the rhetoric where the economic migrants are called greedy for wanting what we have and what we don't want to lose to them. Maybe it's okay to be greedy at times and I don't want to share everything I have either, but then don't act like you're on a moral high horse. I bring up the poverty elsewhere because I think we do have the power to take a few simple steps that could mitigate it without losing all that much of our wealth. But we often don't because it is more convenient.
I'm not even saying that I were completely blameless, but I try not to demonize others just because they show relatively normal human behavior and just had a far more disadvantaged point to start from.

[Husar]

Seems like Google had an idea how to get some of those campaign funds: https://www.google.com/posts/

[Viking]

Calling Maine for Sanders.

Yep. So as far as I can see, Sanders won 66 delegates this weekend, Clinton 63.

[Hooahguy]

Where are you reading that? I'm reading Clinton won 60 delegates to Bernie's 49.
Edit: forgot about Maine, my bad. But wouldn't it still be Bernie at 64 and Hillary at 67? If my math is right anyways and I'm not forgetting something.

[Viking]

I'm using the numbers provided here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...d-results.html

I haven't done much cross-checking. It does though look like 5 delegates haven't been awarded yet for Maine (total is 25 according to Wikipedia), so the final numbers may change (but Sanders should still have gotten a majority for this weekend).