View Full Version : POTUS Election thread
Hooahguy
02-09-2016, 17:15
Why do you assume people who don't vote have no grasp of politics? Does that mean that those who vote do have a grasp? How many votes would Trump get if nominated?
People can have a good grasp of politics, and precisely because of that, they can be disillusioned and refuse to cast their votes, because they feel there's no real choice.
Because I have talked to those people and they assume that Hillary is the devil, Bernie is god, and he will obviously win in November because "feel the berrrrnnnn!" The vast majority have never voted in their lives and are being enticed by his promises of free stuff.
IIRC, Kerry won more votes than Bush.
Nope you are thinking of Gore in 2000.
Well, the main line of attack against him by the GOP is basically the reason why his supporters have chosen him. And he appears to be gaining support not so much by cutting into Hilary's base, but by getting new voters.
I feel he'll prove much more resilient than many expect. Yes, in the end, he'll probably lose the nomination to Clinton, but she will have to put all her effort into it.
The GOP has barely attacked him. I have yet to see or hear an attack ad against Bernie sponsored by GOP groups being played on the radio or TV. Im sure they are out there but almost all of them are being focused against Hillary. Again, if the GOP managed to trash Kerry on his war record, imagine what they will do with Bernie, who has no such record. In addition, the groups who do most of the local fighting are PACs and whatnot. Bernie has none, as he proudly claims. As such, he has no real way to combat all the fires that the GOP groups will set around the country. He could accept the help of the Democrat PACs, but that would go against one of the tenets of his campaign. Hes kinda backed himself into a corner here.
Arguably, they are worse.
Not what I meant. In 2008 there was a bad recession, two unpopular wars, and a very unpopular president. Now, 8 years after Obama the democrats are fighting an uphill battle.
I haven't heard any other candidate refer to themselves as socialists. Maybe really far back.
Obama was saying the system is rigged too. Maybe not quite as loudly, but the voices for change have been around forever.
Even if we assume that Clinton isn't in the pockets of Wall Street and big corporations, surely, at this point, you must see that system is the reason Obama failed.
But what does that even mean? Almost all the politicians take money from Wall Street and big corporations. Even Obama, and he pushed for very strict regulations against Wall Street and businesses. I want a president who looks favorably on Wall Street/big corporations just as much as small business and the like. Wall Street and co. is a big part of the economy and someone who demonizes them as much as Bernie has is not such a great thing in my opinion.
To change the system you have to fight against it, not work with it. That is the main difference between Hillary and Bernie in my view.
He may fail, but if I were American, I certainly wouldn't let the fear of failure stop me from trying.
Except that failure in this case means a reversal of everything Obama has accomplished. Obamacare is just a veto away from being removed, and considering that a number of SCOTUS justices are rather old, the next president might be picking new ones as well and I would rather have Hillary picking them over Rubio or god forbid Cruz.
I agree that much more change is needed, but considering how split the country is, its better to go with the option of making gradual change to sow the seeds of bigger change later on. Too many people voted in Obama expecting things to change overnight and got burned. There is no reason why Sanders will be any different.
You have to strive for the unattainable to get somewhere in the first place.
Also it can't hurt to make a point with your vote, even if you do not get exactly what you want, you show a lot of people that you want it.
A Sanders nomination would only have a chance against a Trump nomination - but this is 2016, not 1936 or sommit
History always repeats itself. :clown:
Hooahguy
02-09-2016, 17:25
You have to strive for the unattainable to get somewhere in the first place.
Also it can't hurt to make a point with your vote, even if you do not get exactly what you want, you show a lot of people that you want it.
I would agree, but there is so much at stake this election. If Bernie does get the nomination I will certainly vote for him, but I will not be like those faux-progressives who wont vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.
Greyblades
02-09-2016, 22:10
I would rather have Hillary picking them over Rubio or god forbid Cruz.
What about trump?
Montmorency
02-09-2016, 22:32
What about trump?
He will delegate absolutely great people (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/donald-trump-gotcha-question-terrorist-leaders-hugh-hewitt/) to pick them for him.
Greyblades
02-09-2016, 22:55
I know thats supposed to be a jab, but I cant help but feel that leaving the important choice to whatever random schmuck trump ropes into doing his job for him would probably be a step up to whoever the other candidates choose.
Hooahguy
02-10-2016, 05:00
So Trump crushed in New Hampshire as did Bernie. A bit surprised about Trump, not at all about Sanders. The real test for Sanders will be Super Tuesday.
GeneralHankerchief
02-10-2016, 14:24
Good analysis Hooah, just one minor quibble:
Sanders supporters, of the kind that I have encountered in the wild, reek of "hey this guy is offering me free stuff, lets vote for him!"
Pretty much every voter who prioritizes the economy (as opposed to social values or foreign policy) uses this as a guideline. Which candidate is it going to be easiest for me to make/keep money? Sanders just chooses to hammer that point home harder than most.
Sarmatian
02-10-2016, 14:49
Pretty much every voter who prioritizes the economy (as opposed to social values or foreign policy) uses this as a guideline. Which candidate is it going to be easiest for me to make/keep money? Sanders just chooses to hammer that point home harder than most.
Isn't this basically how everything works? The reason why big corporation invest in politicians, particularly republicans?
GeneralHankerchief
02-10-2016, 15:06
Exactly, for the most part, unless (as previously mentioned) voters de-emphasize it over social issues and/or foreign policy. I think Hooah's knocking Sanders for it mostly because he's delivering the same message but with a couple of key differences:
1) It's less subtle
2) It's going through different channels than usual
Sarmatian
02-10-2016, 15:28
Exactly, for the most part, unless (as previously mentioned) voters de-emphasize it over social issues and/or foreign policy. I think Hooah's knocking Sanders for it mostly because he's delivering the same message but with a couple of key differences:
1) It's less subtle
2) It's going through different channels than usual
I wouldn't say it is the same.
Since the system isn't in the balance, but heavily skewed towards one side, harsher rhetoric is easily more justifiable in one case than in the other.
Sarmatian
02-10-2016, 23:16
A question about the nomination process - Bernie won some 150 000 votes, about 60% and Hillary won 90 000, or about 38% or something like that. Yet, an article I read stated they both got 15 delegates each. How is that possible? Is that a mistake?
GeneralHankerchief
02-11-2016, 00:01
A question about the nomination process - Bernie won some 150 000 votes, about 60% and Hillary won 90 000, or about 38% or something like that. Yet, an article I read stated they both got 15 delegates each. How is that possible? Is that a mistake?
Not by design, but it's probably a mistake in principle (not going there though).
Basically the Democrats have an additional wrinkle to their nomination process called "superdelegates" - essentially elected officials and other party hotshots, who are not bound by the results of the primaries and are allowed to support whoever they damn well please. So even though Sanders won big in the New Hampshire primary, most of the state's superdelegates have pledged themselves to Clinton - with I think two remaining undecided at this point.
A big hurdle Obama had to deal with in 2008 was overcoming Clinton's at-one-time heavy advantage in terms of superdelegates, and Sanders is going to have the exact same problem.
Sarmatian
02-11-2016, 08:15
Basically the Democrats have an additional wrinkle to their nomination process called "superdelegates" - essentially elected officials and other party hotshots, who are not bound by the results of the primaries and are allowed to support whoever they damn well please.
Well, that is rude.
How many jumped ship and went over to Obama by the time of the convention in 2008?
Greyblades
02-11-2016, 13:49
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/077/673/a3c.png
Greyblades
02-14-2016, 03:53
Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia is dead.
The senate republicans have declared the will not approve anyone Obama picks.
The stakes for this election have now been set.
I think that's absurd, to leave such a position open for a year. Just as absurd as picking only party-puppets for the position.
GeneralHankerchief
02-15-2016, 16:34
Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia is dead.
The senate republicans have declared the will not approve anyone Obama picks.
The stakes for this election have now been set.
The GOP is taking a big gamble with this declaration as there is essentially no room for maneuver. Obama being where he is in his term will almost certainly nominate a moderate (while obviously still leaning liberal but you know what I mean) in order to ease along passage. If Clinton or Sanders end up winning the general the chances are extremely high that they - especially Sanders - will not be as conciliatory towards the Republicans with their nominee.
Basically an odd twist on the Prisoner's Dilemma. Take the 100% chance of a minor punishment, or go for broke and risk it all.
Greyblades
02-18-2016, 03:12
Obama took part in 2006 filibuster of Bush supreme court nomination, says it was 'symbolic (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/17/white-house-says-obama-regrets-filibuster-against-/)'
The White House said Wednesday that President Obama “regrets” his filibuster as a senator in 2006 against Republican Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, as Democrats and liberal activists gear up to pressure Senate Republicans to allow a vote on Mr. Obama’s eventual nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Mr. Obama’s vote a decade ago to block Justice Alito was “symbolic,” while current Republican opposition to Mr. Obama filling the vacancy is “reflexive” and unfair, said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
GeneralHankerchief
02-18-2016, 03:44
I've been following the issue of judicial confirmations since 2005 and for a time even interned for a lobbyist group that specialized in that area (I'm still on their mailing list). Ignore all the bullshit, it's 100% down to ideology. Both sides. If they're in power then they sing the tune of getting them confirmed and how the other party has no right to block qualified nominees in the name of politics. If they're not in power then they'll block away until deals get made. Then they'll ignore the deals the next time the issue becomes salient again. Once control switches, both sides do a complete 180 and then blast the other side's hypocrisy while conveniently ignoring their own. Lather rinse repeat.
Looks like it'll be even in Nevada. 50-49 for Sanders as 14% of results are in.
https://nvcaucuses.com/
Sarmatian
02-20-2016, 22:30
Will people feel bad for Hillary if she loses a race everyone expected her to win twice in a row now?
GeneralHankerchief
02-20-2016, 22:34
Will people feel bad for Hillary if she loses a race everyone expected her to win twice in a row now?
I expect the percentage of people who will feel bad for her should this scenario happen will align exactly with the percentage of people who voted for her.
Sarmatian
02-20-2016, 22:51
I expect the percentage of people who will feel bad for her should this scenario happen will align exactly with the percentage of people who voted for her.
That's true, but I thought personally of people who weren't invested, maybe not even Americans. As someone who looks at it from the distance.
And she's gonna lose.
GeneralHankerchief
02-20-2016, 23:24
I think she's still got the inside track, she's still up in Nevada right now and South Carolina looks to be solidly in her pocket as well. Too much infrastructure, too much familiarity with voters outside of Sanders's base, and I strongly believe the GOP is going to be too weakened from their clown car of a nomination process to mount a serious challenge unless they get their act together essentially right now.
I don't think she's gonna lose, looks like she won Nevada, and not even very close. As of now this shows 18 to 14 for Clinton:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Also note she got 449 superdelegates and Sanders got 19....
Sarmatian
02-20-2016, 23:40
I think she's still got the inside track, she's still up in Nevada right now and South Carolina looks to be solidly in her pocket as well. Too much infrastructure, too much familiarity with voters outside of Sanders's base, and I strongly believe the GOP is going to be too weakened from their clown car of a nomination process to mount a serious challenge unless they get their act together essentially right now.
I know. She's in a better position. On the other hand, just a few weeks ago, everyone predicted a landslide win for her in Nevada and it looks like it's gonna be a few points.
She lacks a message, something that people can get behind. She presented herself as a safe choice, like she didn't realize that we'll be understood as more of the same. Can be argued that it really means more of the same.
I don't think she's gonna lose, looks like she won Nevada, and not even very close. As of now this shows 18 to 14 for Clinton:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
Also note she got 449 superdelegates and Sanders got 19....
It's close enough.
And from what I understood about superdelegates, they can change their mind at any time, unlike regular delegates.
And they wouldn't go against the wish of the voters anyway. They all pledged themselves to her in 2008 and switched to Obama later.
Greyblades
02-21-2016, 00:03
You know i take some solace that no matter who wins the final weeks of election will be amazing to watch.
a completely inoffensive name
02-21-2016, 08:07
Can't stump the trump. I'm going to be laughing about Jeb all night till my shift end.
This is getting really interesting. American elections are always worth your time following them.
(go team Trump, Hillary eats baby's she scares me)
Gilrandir
02-23-2016, 12:54
go team Trump, Hillary eats baby's she scares me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lGH_DvtBEM
http://bp0.blogger.com/_qI3s3Re9mP0/R4T73y0beoI/AAAAAAAAA5c/cAMlONkl6-g/s1600-h/clinton_invasion.jpg
;)
Seamus Fermanagh
02-25-2016, 20:53
So far, it is about dis-satisfaction (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252299-poll-7-in-10-us-voters-dissatisfied). In a normal year, this is 40-odd percent of our votes. This year it is over 70%.
Major slices of both parties are pissed at the normal way of doing business. For the GOP, you flip off the current system by voting for the Donald. NOTE: 70% of GOP votes who decide more than 3 weeks before the primary/caucus who they will vote for vote for Trump. Those who are weighing and evaluating in the last two weeks vote for the more orthodox candidates. Donald is THE champion of the "I'm taking my marbles and going home if I cannot have it my way" crowd.
For the Dems, Sanders represents the logical manifestation of the ideology they want in their heart-of-hearts. By Brit standards, he'd probably be considered a garden-variety Labour party type. To us, he is a hard-left wing semi-socialist. Single Payer health care, active wealth redistribution through the tax system, a heavy emphasis on organizations being for the benefit of employees more than stockholders, etc. Clinton has the better machine and the stronger connections to the African-descent and Non-Cuban Latino voter blocs, so it is likely she who will end up with the nomination -- but it is Bernie they love.
One interesting outcome here is the potential for Trump to secure the nomination and in so doing, win OR lose the general, engender the break up of the GOP that's been looming for most of a decade now. It will be interesting to see.
Greyblades
02-25-2016, 21:06
I'm skeptical about these claims that one candidate or another will cause a schism in either party. America is way too polarized for that. The closest i can see happening is an independent leeching votes from one party, but that doesnt mean that the party wont reform once the candidate loses.
HopAlongBunny
02-26-2016, 00:22
From the outside, Trump exposes the vacuum that the GOP has become ie: isolated from outside influences and empty.
It is a measure of discontent that he could become the candidate.
Entertainment_wise, I'm pulling for a Bernie vs The Donald: Cage match extravaganza!
Greyblades
02-26-2016, 01:31
From the outside, Trump exposes the vacuum that the GOP has become ie: isolated from outside influences and empty.
It is a measure of discontent that he could become the candidate.
Entertainment_wise, I'm pulling for a Bernie vs The Donald: Cage match extravaganza!
TBH I'd also say the same of bernie and the democrats.
TBH I'd also say the same of bernie and the democrats.
Bernie is the most substantial candidate ever!
Greyblades
02-26-2016, 02:35
Considering american voting history, do you think they would really vote in bernie if they weren't discontent with the dems?
Hooahguy
02-26-2016, 21:07
Christie has endorsed Trump. Genius move by Trump to do it now, takes the thunder from Rubio's hit during the last debate and turns the news cycle in Trump's favor.
a completely inoffensive name
02-27-2016, 07:21
I want Trump vs Hillary because Trump will stump her like no one else.
Hooahguy
02-27-2016, 20:29
Thats highly debatable. Sure, he would get the anti-establishment vote, but many more would turn out just to prevent Trump from getting in the White House. Besides, Hillary winning would be good for the GOP, as they can keep attacking her and keep that anger towards the left going and then possibly win in 2020. But if Trump is in the White House, he is unpredictable and theres no way to really tell what his impact would be. Plus I doubt the GOP establishment would really get behind Trump if it meant potentially torpedoing their chances in 2020.
Hooahguy
02-28-2016, 04:47
Major loss for Sanders tonight in South Carolina. Doesnt bode well for the Sanders campaign with Super Tuesday coming up fast.
a completely inoffensive name
02-28-2016, 14:15
but many more would turn out just to prevent Trump from getting in the White House.
Completely false. GOP primaries have had record breaking turnouts while the Democratic primaries have reached record lows in turnout. Nobody is excited for Hillary, nobody is going to vote to stop Trump. They will just not show up.
And when the Bern train finally gets derailed at the convention, you can bet that all those young liberals demonizing Hillary as a corporatist will avoid the polls like a plague.
Hooahguy
02-28-2016, 17:08
Yeah I dont know who you have been talking to but most of those young liberals demonizing Hillary are actually libertarian refugees who are just anti-establishment. Such as my roommate. Who used to support Rand Paul and now is a Bernie supporter. Looking at the /r/politics sub on Reddit is not indicative of most liberals. Most actual liberals wouldnt cut off the nose just to spite the face. And the turnout for the democrats is hardly record lows. Maybe compared to 2008, but certainly not record lows. For example, turnout this year in South Carolina was much higher compared to 2004. Plus I know of a number of Republicans who would vote for Hillary over Trump. Such as my parents and some of my friends. And when you have the Senate Majority Leader saying that the GOP wont get behind Trump if he wins the nomination, its clear that they would rather torpedo Trump and have a better shot at winning 2020 (once the anti-establishment candidates have been discredited) than have Trump in the White House who could be a major disaster for the GOP.
Sarmatian
02-28-2016, 21:42
Why is Clinton doing so much better than Sanders with blacks and hispanics? I do not see anything that would make her appeal more to them. As secretary of state, she couldn't have done much to help them in practical terms.
Everybody take that as a given, so what am I not seeing?
Why is Clinton doing so much better than Sanders with blacks and hispanics? I do not see anything that would make her appeal more to them. As secretary of state, she couldn't have done much to help them in practical terms.
Everybody take that as a given, so what am I not seeing?
I think they all love her husband and that she pretty much represents a continuation of Obama's path
Hooahguy
02-28-2016, 22:42
Because her rapport with those communities goes back a very long time, way, way before she was Secretary of State.
A good article on some of the more general reasons why she is so popular. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-black-voters-remain-in-hillary-clintons-corner/2016/02/25/7a86100a-da7d-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html)
And judging by how Ive seen many Sanders supporters talk about the Black community, it is very condescending, as if these Sanders supporters knew what was best for the Black community who apparently cannot make their own decisions. I read this morning on the political discussion subreddit that a user claimed that in the days leading up to the primary, a Sanders campaign worker called, and when the user replied that he was going to vote for Hillary, the Sanders campaign worker at first didnt know what to say and then he claims that the campaign worker said that "Sanders supports welfare too." Dont know if its true but if so, it shows a stark gap in understanding by his campaign staffers, who from experience tend to be white and often on the younger side. And getting Cornel West and Killer Mike as your outreach to the Black community isnt a help either as those two arent exactly popular or influential.
a completely inoffensive name
02-29-2016, 01:33
Yeah I dont know who you have been talking to but most of those young liberals demonizing Hillary are actually libertarian refugees who are just anti-establishment. Such as my roommate. Who used to support Rand Paul and now is a Bernie supporter. Looking at the /r/politics sub on Reddit is not indicative of most liberals. Most actual liberals wouldnt cut off the nose just to spite the face. And the turnout for the democrats is hardly record lows. Maybe compared to 2008, but certainly not record lows. For example, turnout this year in South Carolina was much higher compared to 2004. Plus I know of a number of Republicans who would vote for Hillary over Trump. Such as my parents and some of my friends. And when you have the Senate Majority Leader saying that the GOP wont get behind Trump if he wins the nomination, its clear that they would rather torpedo Trump and have a better shot at winning 2020 (once the anti-establishment candidates have been discredited) than have Trump in the White House who could be a major disaster for the GOP.
Young people don't vote for a reason. If they are given a choice between two evils, they don't bother choosing.
Any conservative talking about choosing Hillary over Trump is venting their frustration. She has been the conservative anti-christ since the 1990s, when it comes time to make a choice, they are going to fall back on party loyalty, or they won't vote at all.
Mitch McConnell thinks the GOP can just ride out this election just because his seat is not threatened. The GOP leadership is feckless and have handled Donald Trump in the worst possible way for months now.
Their plan since 2008 has been to remove Obama and try to reverse his policies, if they concede this election then they abandon everything they have working for over the last 8 years. The liberals get their victories cemented in stone, and we get to experience a SCOTUS where up to 3 judges are nominated by President Trump. Do you not see how utterly terrible this idea is?
Hooahguy
02-29-2016, 02:52
Young people don't vote for a reason. If they are given a choice between two evils, they don't bother choosing.
Yes, because young people are generally naive when it comes to how politics works. Also tend to be lazy and not even register beforehand then complain when they wake up on election day and cant vote.
Any conservative talking about choosing Hillary over Trump is venting their frustration. She has been the conservative anti-christ since the 1990s, when it comes time to make a choice, they are going to fall back on party loyalty, or they won't vote at all.
We will see. Hillary in the White House is better for the GOP than Trump. According to some of my more moderate friends, Trump would not only wreck the GOP he would wreck the country. They say that at least with Hillary not only do they have a stronger shot at winning in 2020, they can shore up the base. Possibly. We will see in November.
Mitch McConnell thinks the GOP can just ride out this election just because his seat is not threatened. The GOP leadership is feckless and have handled Donald Trump in the worst possible way for months now.
Their plan since 2008 has been to remove Obama and try to reverse his policies, if they concede this election then they abandon everything they have working for over the last 8 years. The liberals get their victories cemented in stone, and we get to experience a SCOTUS where up to 3 judges are nominated by President Trump. Do you not see how utterly terrible this idea is?
They have certainly messed up with Trump, but if torpedoing him to maintain their seats and possibly have a shot for 2020 they will. Its the GOP.
An accurate cartoon of the situation:
17694
(click to expand)
a completely inoffensive name
02-29-2016, 09:44
We will see. Hillary in the White House is better for the GOP than Trump.
Right, the outspoken liberal with the political clout and monetary backing of wall street is better for conservatives than Donald "Build the Wall" Trump. Again, losing an election is not a legitimate strategy towards winning another.
According to some of my more moderate friends, Trump would not only wreck the GOP he would wreck the country. They say that at least with Hillary not only do they have a stronger shot at winning in 2020, they can shore up the base. Possibly. We will see in November.
I would say your conservative friends are about as delusional as Democrats thinking that 4 years of George Bush would shore up the DMC base for 2004.
They have certainly messed up with Trump, but if torpedoing him to maintain their seats and possibly have a shot for 2020 they will. Its the GOP.
Or, you know, they could just work with him. Since he is after all, a moderate conservative. The GOP's strategy is nonsense, it's old guard with ego's too big to let another one into the club.
Gilrandir
02-29-2016, 09:53
In case you didn't see:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/18/we-have-a-serious-problem
Greyblades
02-29-2016, 13:23
...a piece of fanfiction?
Hooahguy
02-29-2016, 17:45
Right, the outspoken liberal with the political clout and monetary backing of wall street is better for conservatives than Donald "Build the Wall" Trump. Again, losing an election is not a legitimate strategy towards winning another.
You are thinking very short term. Yes, Clinton would be a major risk. But polling shows over a third of GOP voters say they won't vote for Trump. Whether or not that is true remains to be seen, but it is widely viewed that Trump is tearing the GOP apart. Christie's defection is further sign of this.
Besides, since their hold on Congress seems to be pretty safe, the GOP can just continue to obstruct as they always did with Obama, so not much would get done anyways.
Also both sides have the backing of Wall Street, whatever the hell that means.
I would say your conservative friends are about as delusional as Democrats thinking that 4 years of George Bush would shore up the DMC base for 2004.
The two situations are not anywhere near similar. At all. For one, the respective establishments were solidly behind their candidates. The election of either did not threaten the breakup of any party.
It makes simple sense really. HRC in the White House means the GOP can keep on the attack which has proven to be profitable for them. If Trump is in the White House they are now on the defensive with an idiot in charge.
Or, you know, they could just work with him. Since he is after all, a moderate conservative. The GOP's strategy is nonsense, it's old guard with ego's too big to let another one into the club.
Whatever the GOP strategy is, we know that they won't get behind Trump. After the 2012 election the GOP decided it needed to do more to attract minority voters. Trump is ignoring all of that and appealing solely to the base that would vote republican regardless. Doesn't bode well at all for him. I'm sure in the end the GOP would work with him, it's the extent that they would that is the question. Trump is a divisive character, the GOP needs to decide if sabotaging Trump in the hopes that the guys in the middle would accept the GOP to win future elections is worth it.
Greyblades
02-29-2016, 18:58
I think it will hinge on whether or not Trump "sobers" once he wins the primaries.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-01-2016, 18:47
Trump is an old-fashioned positional bargainer who likes to make deals. He starts at 300% of what he will settle for and then haggles until he gets something in the acceptable range. Trump supporters are currently basking in his 'no-holds-barred' rhetoric, but should he win the brass ring they will end up with governance far closer to the same-old-same-old that currently exists. THAT is when the GOP crisis peaks and we see if a party split occurs. Trump winning the nomination but losing to Hilary in the general will generate a continuance of the current state of things and will ALSO create a lesser risk of GOP break up as the Tea Party wing again feels themselves used and abused.
The only major candidate left who would truly attempt to downsize government, minimize the power of the executive, and pursue a more conservative social agenda is Ted Cruz. Unfortunately for Ted, BOTH the Dems and the GOP establishment would oppose him in a general were he to get the nomination (the establishment by damning through faint praise means).
Rather disconnected on a personal level I am. Like Cruz on downsizing government and following a more constitutional path, but do NOT want the government legislating social issues better left to the several states. Like Trump's theme of "great again" but do NOT see any substance behind him and roll my eyes at the thought of Trump v Putin at a summit. Rubio is establishment, despite his rhetoric, so we would have more of the same with him and someone who is not going to command respect among foreign leaders who will view him as an "intern."
All-in-all, we end up with another President Clinton, the Dems take bake the Senate on a 50/50 basis using the VP, the House continues as it is, and nothing definitively useful gets done for another four years. Go USA.
Sarmatian
03-02-2016, 12:01
So after this, it is pretty much certain it's gonna be a Trump/Clinton face off, which also pretty much makes certain another Clinton will be in the White House.
Same old, same old.
Greyblades
03-02-2016, 12:35
Depends who you ask. Most I've seen say it would mean trump is certain to win.
GeneralHankerchief
03-02-2016, 14:45
General election polls this far out don't mean very much. We still have eight entire months for the candidates to dig up dirt on each other, for unexpected national and world events to change the situation, for somebody to say the exact wrong thing. In early September 2008, McCain looked to be on the rise after the initial positive reaction to Palin as his VP choice. By the end of the month that bump had reversed itself after America realized that Palin wasn't exactly the gold standard. In October the economy melted down. Each of these three instances was far more substantial than anything that may have taken up three news cycles in March and then got forgotten.
We're not even at the conventions yet.
a completely inoffensive name
03-02-2016, 14:56
Trump stumped the establishment so bad today, Graham said the only choice may be too rally behind Ted "basket case" Cruz.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-02-2016, 18:00
General election polls this far out don't mean very much. We still have eight entire months for the candidates to dig up dirt on each other, for unexpected national and world events to change the situation, for somebody to say the exact wrong thing. In early September 2008, McCain looked to be on the rise after the initial positive reaction to Palin as his VP choice. By the end of the month that bump had reversed itself after America realized that Palin wasn't exactly the gold standard. In October the economy melted down. Each of these three instances was far more substantial than anything that may have taken up three news cycles in March and then got forgotten.
We're not even at the conventions yet.
Wise advice here. Yes, Clinton and Trump appear to have leads that are likely to see them secure the nomination levels prior to the convention. It is early, world events and/or 'foot-in-mouth-disease" could still change the playing field substantially.
Hilary's powerful numbers in the South, and among African and Latin descent Dem voters -- coupled with superdelegates -- strongly favors her. I suspect we shall see Sanders bow out near the end of March. Remember, thought, that Bernie's money comes from small donors who can still contribute more and he has raised lots -- he only will bow out when he cannot secure the nomination on delegate numbers, not for lack of funds.
The GOP is less certain. Trump's lead builds, but he is doing poorly in urban areas in the South and mid-Atlantic. Rubio likely cannot win, but DOES have the edge among that sub-set of Republicans. Trump is only winning first past the post, he doesn't have outright majorities anywhere so far. This means, as GH cautions, that the fat lady has not yet sung her aria (though you may hear her warming up her voice).
Interestingly, the last (?) poll in Minnesota (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-minnesota-democratic-presidential-caucus) (from mid-January) predicted this result:
Sanders 25%
Clinton 59%
Actual results were
Sanders 62%
Clinton 38%
Wonder if there are more like this one around.
(a lot of states appear to be missing polls altogether; or HP's overview hasn't included them)
Seamus Fermanagh
03-02-2016, 18:31
Sanders is the plucky true-heart dem they would all want to be in their heart of hearts -- a true Social Democrat.
However, he has wins in: VT, NH, MN, CO, and OK to his name so far, and a tie in IA.
Vermont has elected and re-elected a self labeled socialist to the Senate; New Hampshire are Bernie's neighbors who have been hearing him on TV almost as long as has Vermont; Minnesota elected a professional wrestler to the governorship and a comedian to the Senate; Colorado is one of 4 states with legalized marijauna for recreational use; Oklahoma is a more "standard" state by US standards.....but hasn't voted for a Democrat President since LBJ (over Goldwater) when I was 9 months old.
Bernie is getting all the true hearts and all the eclectic states....he doesn't have the broader support he will need for a nomination. Heck, he even lost Massachusetts, which should have been in his wheelhouse (He DID win western Mass, but lost Boston to Clinton's machine).
Strike For The South
03-03-2016, 14:49
I'm still half convinced Trump is a Hillary plant.
If the was any justice in the world, or less likely, our DOJ had the cojones; she would spend the rest of her life behind bars. Instead we get immunity handed out like Candy to former Staffers.
I voted for Kasich in the primaries because he is the closest to my actual views. However, burning the whole system down is my second choice and that means supporting Trump in the general. I won't support Bernie and I think Hillary is a felon, so that kind of rules the democrats out.
I watch the media and continue to be Jacks complete lack of surprise as they still can't understand Trump or the anger that drives people to vote for him. It's exactly that kind of smug condescension that will get him elected. At which point I hope S.E. Cupps high class head explodes.
Sarmatian
03-03-2016, 15:51
I voted for Kasich
I always knew that deep down, all you Americans want to be ruled by Slavs.
Strike For The South
03-03-2016, 16:11
I always knew that deep down, all you Americans want to be ruled by Slavs.
Anyone can be American
Kralizec
03-03-2016, 22:23
Kasich is also the one I like the best, and surpise, at the same time he's widely unpopular with the GOP base. I've seen others describe him as a "republican for people who hate republicans". God forbid they should pick someone who is palatable to a broader public.
Sarmatian
03-04-2016, 11:06
Anyone can be American
Depending on who wins eventually, that might have to be amended to anyone but Muslims and Mexicans.
Strike For The South
03-04-2016, 16:27
Depending on who wins eventually, that might have to be amended to anyone but Muslims and Mexicans.
He said neither of those things.
Have you seen the Mexican border with Guatemala? Do you know where Trumps strongest support in Texas came from? Do you happen to know what the overwhelming majority of those people are ethnically?
It's funny considering how the MSM was saying he would never get a Hispanic vote. Heads firmly planted in their own asses.
As someone who grew up in South Texas, I know how much EVERYONE down there wants as much help as they can get.
Yes, I'm sure the people of Guatemala desperately need help.
Strike For The South
03-04-2016, 20:17
Yes, I'm sure the people of Guatemala desperately need help.
I'm not sure what this means.
It's a 10 foot concrete wall with razor wire attached.
Anyone can be American
Except Ted Cruz and Obama, apparently.
I'm not sure what this means.
It's a 10 foot concrete wall with razor wire attached.
I didn't know the answer to all of your questions, although I did recently watch Sin Nombre, where the border was apparently relatively easy to cross on top of a train. It seemed like you were saying that the people in southern texas need help keeping all the immigrants out so I just wanted to remind you that Guatemalans also need help or they would probably stay in their country in the first place. The sad truth is just that a lot of countries are so poor or corrupt or both that their people will not just stop dreaming of a better place because there is a wall in the way. And the other sad truth is that some random teenager in a ghetto is rather unlikely to be able to improve his own country, he's far more likely to die or end up imprisoned. And then some country up north (also true for the EU) promises freedom, equality and lots of money. It is merely human to want to go there then, it's how America was discovered.
I am aware we cannot just accept all the poor in the world, but we could probably do more to get them out of poverty. It would help us, too.
Kralizec
03-05-2016, 00:22
I didn't know the answer to all of your questions, although I did recently watch Sin Nombre, where the border was apparently relatively easy to cross on top of a train. It seemed like you were saying that the people in southern texas need help keeping all the immigrants out so I just wanted to remind you that Guatemalans also need help or they would probably stay in their country in the first place. The sad truth is just that a lot of countries are so poor or corrupt or both that their people will not just stop dreaming of a better place because there is a wall in the way. And the other sad truth is that some random teenager in a ghetto is rather unlikely to be able to improve his own country, he's far more likely to die or end up imprisoned. And then some country up north (also true for the EU) promises freedom, equality and lots of money. It is merely human to want to go there then, it's how America was discovered.
I am aware we cannot just accept all the poor in the world, but we could probably do more to get them out of poverty. It would help us, too.
Posts like this one make me want to build walls.
Yes, it's understandable. I don't think I would do it in the same situation (I'm not an adventurous type), but I understand the material motives for wanting to ditch a developing country for a rich one. I just dislike it when people phrase these motivations in quasi-humanitarian terms. Every now and then I even hear or read the term "economic refugee" - GAH!
If Americans want to seal their border with concrete they have every right to do so. One might wonder how effective it would be or wether it's worth the effort, but that's not my concern. The only stupid things about Trumps' proposal are his bigoted way of phrasing it and the idea that Mexico is somehow going to pay for it. More likely he'll find some other way to weasel Mexico out of some money, and then claim that the wall is financed entirely out of that.
I'm more concerned about the environmental aspect, i.e. the movement of wildlife as opposed to undocumented fortune seekers.
CrossLOPER
03-05-2016, 00:36
The only stupid things about Trumps' proposal are his bigoted way of phrasing it and the idea that Mexico is somehow going to pay for it.
That's like being concerned about dead lawn grass after a nuclear reactor melted down near your house.
I'm more concerned about the environmental aspect, i.e. the movement of wildlife as opposed to undocumented fortune seekers.
The wall, the costs of maintaining it, the costs of patching up whatever workarounds people find around it, as well as other not readily obvious reprecussions seem to outweigh whatever benefit might come of it.
Posts like this one make me want to build walls.
Yes, it's understandable. I don't think I would do it in the same situation (I'm not an adventurous type), but I understand the material motives for wanting to ditch a developing country for a rich one. I just dislike it when people phrase these motivations in quasi-humanitarian terms. Every now and then I even hear or read the term "economic refugee" - GAH!
If Americans want to seal their border with concrete they have every right to do so. One might wonder how effective it would be or wether it's worth the effort, but that's not my concern. The only stupid things about Trumps' proposal are his bigoted way of phrasing it and the idea that Mexico is somehow going to pay for it. More likely he'll find some other way to weasel Mexico out of some money, and then claim that the wall is financed entirely out of that.
I'm more concerned about the environmental aspect, i.e. the movement of wildlife as opposed to undocumented fortune seekers.
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 don't forbid anyone from building walls, I just think it's a stupid, superficial, heartless, xenophobic idea borne out of selfishness that does not solve the root of the problem at all, it only puts one more obstacle into the way of desperate people. The Spanish built three very high fences around Melilla and people still try to climb them. They also send people back illegally and have the Morrocan police beat them up and people still try to get in.
As for undocumented fortune seekers, as I said before, trying to make things go your way, having goals and following them ruthlessly, even being stupid as a teenager are things which are cherished in our culture until someone poor from outside our culture gets the same idea, then they're greedy criminals...
You know, there are simple ways to start, such as paying a price for coffee that does not require what's basically slave labor...
But "the market" being the way it is makes it okay I guess.
Greyblades
03-05-2016, 02:14
I'd like to see numbers before someone says it'll be too expensive.
I'd like to see numbers before someone says it'll be too expensive.
I don't think it would be, it's more like putting a bandaid onto a tumor. Although perhaps one like the DDR had with minefields and guards that shoot all trespassers may work even better.
a completely inoffensive name
03-05-2016, 14:34
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 don't forbid anyone from building walls, I just think it's a stupid, superficial, heartless, xenophobic idea borne out of selfishness that does not solve the root of the problem at all, it only puts one more obstacle into the way of desperate people. The Spanish built three very high fences around Melilla and people still try to climb them. They also send people back illegally and have the Morrocan police beat them up and people still try to get in.
As for undocumented fortune seekers, as I said before, trying to make things go your way, having goals and following them ruthlessly, even being stupid as a teenager are things which are cherished in our culture until someone poor from outside our culture gets the same idea, then they're greedy criminals...
You know, there are simple ways to start, such as paying a price for coffee that does not require what's basically slave labor...
But "the market" being the way it is makes it okay I guess.
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.
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.
I thought we were talking about Guatemala.
But yes, Mexico has a democratic government, like Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, The Democratic People's Republic of China, Turkey, Russia, Algeria, Greece and so on. It's almost like nation states exist in a vacuum and only the people inside can influence things, like when Greece decided to go bankrupt.
Your view of Mexicans is very condescending, as if they have no agency and no real choice but to live in their current conditions.
Why? I said having goals and following them ruthlessly, the pursuit of money and happiness are commendable qualities in a person in our culture. Many Mexicans choose not to live in their current conditions and move to the US in the pursuit of happiness.
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.
Every country is suffering in part due to its own choices. It's hilarious that you bring up the war on cartels because that one is like playing whack-a-mole. The moment Colombia began to win that war by allying with the US, the cartels popped up in Mexico, totally what all Mexicans voted for of course. It has absolutely nothing to do with the war on drugs or other countries being the main consumers and money whales that keep cartels a viable option.
The point being: Don't call the poor greedy because they want to have what you (and I) are afraid to lose.
Shaka_Khan
03-05-2016, 16:16
I'm still half convinced Trump is a Hillary plant.
If the was any justice in the world, or less likely, our DOJ had the cojones; she would spend the rest of her life behind bars. Instead we get immunity handed out like Candy to former Staffers.
I get the same half feeling about Trump the more I see how the Republicans are doing. The Republican candidates are being trolled into a mess. Look what happened to Jeb. Actually, Trump's verbal attacks remind me of the actings done by the WWE wrestlers. (I've read Trump's book before he announced his presidential campaign. Believe it or not, his book mentioned how he enjoyed the WWE and his participation of it). On the other hand, I've read about an issue about his father that creeps me out.
Looks to me like Nebraska is Berning, though no official confirmation yet.
Greyblades
03-06-2016, 01:26
So I havent seen the latest debate but considering the gif that was made in the hours after it ended...
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/088/368/e39.gif
I'm guessing Trump wasnt quite stumped?
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
03-06-2016, 02:58
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.
After yesterday's results, I make to the two following observations/predictions:
Kasich may outlast Rubio, and may become a viable threat to Cruz
Hillary's southern states are almost spent; things may start to stall or go downhill for her soon
Sarmatian
03-06-2016, 13:03
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
03-06-2016, 13:46
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
03-06-2016, 13:59
Superdelegates can change their minds, but I do agree that Hillary is the likely winner.
a completely inoffensive name
03-06-2016, 14:42
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
03-06-2016, 14:46
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.
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
03-06-2016, 15:05
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
03-06-2016, 15:08
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.
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
03-06-2016, 15:27
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
03-06-2016, 15:27
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.
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
03-06-2016, 16:11
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 RevolutionTM 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
03-06-2016, 20:20
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 RevolutionTM 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
03-06-2016, 20:50
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
03-06-2016, 21:35
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
03-06-2016, 21:43
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
03-06-2016, 21:51
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
03-06-2016, 22:16
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.
Calling Maine for Sanders.
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.
Seems like Google had an idea how to get some of those campaign funds: https://www.google.com/posts/
Calling Maine for Sanders.
Yep. So as far as I can see, Sanders won 66 delegates this weekend, Clinton 63.
Hooahguy
03-07-2016, 13:11
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.
I'm using the numbers provided here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-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).
Hooahguy
03-07-2016, 16:51
I got my results from Politico (http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president). Strange how the reporting isnt consistent this late afterwards.
That overview appears to include superdelegates in the state statistics. Note how it says that Sanders and Clinton both got 15 candidates from New Hampshire, even though Sanders got 60% of the vote.
You cannot even make these things up...
https://i.imgur.com/dVbp2WO.jpg
Greyblades
03-08-2016, 01:19
Haven't you heard?
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/045/314/129146348102598356.jpg
So have you seen him, seen kyle?
Hooahguy
03-08-2016, 05:25
That overview appears to include superdelegates in the state statistics. Note how it says that Sanders and Clinton both got 15 candidates from New Hampshire, even though Sanders got 60% of the vote.
Ah, ok I did not realize that, thank you for pointing that out. I stand corrected. :bow:
Haven't you heard?
So have you seen him, seen kyle?
It was more the oath swearing ceremony, and how he was going on about how if they don't vote for him now, very bad things will happen to them.
The right-hand salute was simply icing on the cake.
Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Sanders seem to get along just fine, does that mean Sanders could unite America again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ZIb2fgdtE
Shaka_Khan
03-08-2016, 18:42
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/045/314/129146348102598356.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/dVbp2WO.jpg
Hillary plant confirmed.
Sarmatian
03-09-2016, 08:38
Sanders wins Michigan, even though polls predicted Hillary's gonna win.
This is gonna go on until summer probably.
Kasich did somewhat worse than I expected, but Rubio even more so.
Didn't see Sanders winning Michigian, but he got Bernt pretty badly in Mississippi, anyway.
Hooahguy
03-09-2016, 13:54
Certainly a very surprising win for Sanders in Michigan. But it was just a morale booster as Clinton still came away with more delegates in the end due to the blowout in Mississippi . I read that the huge discrepancy in polling and results might have come by over sampling democratic voters, not including independents who can vote due to it being an open primary. But Bernie needs to win New York and California to get the nomination and since those primaries are closed (last I remember anyways) I don't see him having much of a chance. But the victory in Michigan will further extend this race and prevent Hillary from pivoting to focus on the general election.
If anything yesterday proved that it was more about demographics than polling results.
Obama talking about the Republican candidates:
https://www.facebook.com/IamFreddieB/videos/10153443510543861/
Obama talking about the Republican candidates:
https://www.facebook.com/IamFreddieB/videos/10153443510543861/
Going to miss him, he did good despite being roadblocked at every single corner by Republicans.
Sarmatian
03-09-2016, 22:14
Obama was a good president, both for the US and the rest of the world.
He maybe shouldn't have compromised as much as he did, but, as some time passes, he will be recognized as one of the better ones.
I read that the huge discrepancy in polling and results might have come by over sampling democratic voters, not including independents who can vote due to it being an open primary.
Here's (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/) a slightly different take, showing how several different factors together could have conspired to the misleading polling results.
Hooahguy
03-09-2016, 23:35
Here's (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/) a slightly different take, showing how several different factors together could have conspired to the misleading polling results.
I was actually about to post that! Another aspect which I think had a massive effect is that protectionism is big in Michigan due to the flagging auto industry which was blamed on NAFTA and foreign cars. Bernie railed against NAFTA while Hillary supported it. I think that is what swung things in his favor as well.
Greyblades
03-10-2016, 01:34
Going to miss him, he did good despite being roadblocked at every single corner by Republicans.
Obama was a good president, both for the US and the rest of the world.
He maybe shouldn't have compromised as much as he did, but, as some time passes, he will be recognized as one of the better ones.
A little early to be judging his tenure, isnt it? Oh well.
I think Obama is America's Could've-Been-King: he had both House and Senate in his party's hands for the first three years and in theory the Democrats could have retained the momentum. Getting much of his campaign promises fulfilled in that time I believe would have been enough to continue their dominance but they didnt* and once the 2011 elections rolled over that was it; The House of Representatives became Republican and Obama's hands became tied and the democrats would fail to recover, even losing the senate in 2015.
After Bush America wanted an A+ president, needed it even. Obama looked like he could have been that President during his campaign but he turned out to be a B- at best, and the dissapointment is biting the democrats in the ass.
Hooahguy
03-10-2016, 02:03
A little early to be judging his tenure, isnt it? Oh well.
I think Obama is America's Could've-Been-King: he had both House and Senate in his party's hands for the first three years and in theory the Democrats could have retained the momentum. Getting much of his campaign promises fulfilled in that time I believe would have been enough to continue their dominance but they didnt* and once the 2011 elections rolled over that was it; The House of Representatives became Republican and Obama's hands became tied and the democrats would fail to recover, even losing the senate in 2015.
After Bush America wanted an A+ president, needed it even. Obama looked like he could have been that President during his campaign but he turned out to be a B- at best, and the dissapointment is biting the democrats in the ass.
I think an issue was that he rammed through Obamacare not realizing the blowback it would have in the 2010 midterm election, losing them the House of Representatives. Or maybe he realized the Democrats were going to lose the House anyways and got through what he saw was a vital piece of legislation.
Greyblades
03-10-2016, 02:51
Going by how the democrats kept going downhill even after Obamacare became yesterday's news I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Republicans will say it's because he did too much, the democrats: too little, but whether it was down to his actions or that of others it is unlikely that he will be remembered as fondly as Lincoln, FDR or Kennedy.
Hooahguy
03-10-2016, 21:29
I think the losses in congressional seats have more to do with the democrats being really lousy at mobilization, especially in midterm elections.
But yeah he won't be a JFK or anything like that and to compare him to Lincoln is silly to begin with, but I think in the end he will be remembered more fondly than Bush, probably along the lines of Clinton than anything else.
I think it was more related to the radicalisation of the right. You have a large segment who are hypersalivating over policies which are simply bad, but play into an alternative reality mindset, versus a more generally apathetic and diverse population. So yes, there are mobilization issues for democrat supporters by comparison.
Two fresh polls from Illinois disagree (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-illinois-presidential-democratic-primary) on who comes first, but there is one thing they both agree on:
https://i.imgur.com/vpKMNNT.jpg
(Sanders in dark blue)
Sanders is ahead of Clinton in Missouri by one point according to the latest, sizeable poll (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-missouri-presidential-democratic-primary) there.
Hooahguy
03-16-2016, 03:51
So Rubio is out, Trump wins Florida, Illinois, and North Carolina. Kasich wins Ohio and Cruz might win Missouri. Meanwhile, Hillary wins handily in Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. Will probably win Illinois (results not fully in yet) and its close in Missouri with Sanders in the lead.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-16-2016, 20:44
On the GOP side, only T. Cruz and D. Trump have a mathematical chance to secure the nomination prior to the convention.
Cruz, so far, has earned 406 of a possible 1398 delegates (29.1%) and would have to earn 831 of the remaining 1079 (77%) to secure the nomination at large.
Trump, so far, has earned 661 of a possible 1398 delegates (47.3%) and would have to earn 676 of the remaining 1079 (62.7%) to secure the nomination at large.
Given that Cruz would have to, essentially, triple his delegate earnings, it is unlikely that he can secure the nomination prior to the convention even if he runs the table and wins all remaining states. The remaining proportional primaries effectively render his outright win impossible even if he were to win every winner-take-all contest remaining.
Trump has a better shot. Much will depend on Rubio supporters and where they migrate with him out of the race. If they go for Kasich or Cruz in large part (regardless of combination) then this will go to the convention. If a large bloc of them shift to Trump, giving him bigger proportional victories and more wins in the winter-take-all category, it is possible that a sense of "inevitability" will suppress non-Trump votes and allow him to squeak out enough delegates for an at large win. However, the more likely result sees Trump earning about 55% of the remaining delegates and falling short by about 80-100 delegates.
Thus, we are likely to see the first "contested" convention in the USA since Adlai Stevenson, on the third convention ballot, secured the chance to lose to Eisenhower in 1952.
Historically, contested convention candidates for the Democrats have fared really poorly against their opponents with about a 30% win rate -- including the era when contested conventions were more the "norm." By contrast, the win/loss rate for Republican candidates following a contested convention has been much closer to the success rate of an at-large republican nominee. This is because, traditionally, the GOP has always been the more organized and unified party -- something that is decidedly NOT in evidence this year after a decade of TEA party internal opposition.
It is likely to be an 'interesting' electoral year (but remember, the Chinese use 'interesting' as a curse).
Kasich outlasts Rubio: check
Much will depend on Rubio supporters and where they migrate with him out of the race. If they go for Kasich or Cruz in large part (regardless of combination) then this will go to the convention.
Especially notable in this context, is Utah (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-utah-presidential-republican-primary#!selected=Cruz,Kasich,Rubio,Trump) on Tuesday. Rubio had a 2% lead there in a poll from February.
HopAlongBunny
03-17-2016, 02:18
A Trump, Hillary contest looks like a lock.
More of the same, or a bandwagon for snake-oil :rolleyes4:
Especially notable in this context, is Utah (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-utah-presidential-republican-primary#!selected=Cruz,Kasich,Rubio,Trump) on Tuesday. Rubio had a 2% lead there in a poll from February.
Latest Utah poll: Cruz up 31%, Kasich up 25%. Trump down 7%.
Latest Utah poll: Cruz up 31%, Kasich up 25%. Trump down 7%.
If there's one state that's gonna be put off by a candidate talking about their penis, it's Utah
(http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/20/bombshell-poll-shows-democrats-win-utah-trump-gop-nominee.html)
The poll revealed that Utah voters would completely reject Trump. Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump 38%-36% while Bernie Sanders leads Trump 48%-37%.
The poll in Utah highlights the degree to which many Republicans won’t vote at all if Trump is the nominee. Republicans aren’t going rally around Trump. Donald Trump also isn’t bringing millions of new people into the Republican camp.
a completely inoffensive name
03-21-2016, 05:06
Utah has how many electors? 6?
Utah has how many electors? 6?
40. As I said, what's interesting here is where Rubio fans are going.
It's also interesting to note how almost a third of the voters will go for a candidate that cannot with the popular vote. I guess it shows how divisive both Cruz and Trump are.
a completely inoffensive name
03-21-2016, 10:34
40.
Nope
Oh, you're referring to the presidential election. Thing is, with a brokered convention; Trump might not even get that far (as a Republican candidate, anyway).
a completely inoffensive name
03-21-2016, 12:42
There is a good probability he won't get the nomination. But if he does, it's not a blow out like everyone says.
If he loses Utah, he will pick up other states worth a lot more by playing his card right.
https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10599701_10153546309327831_3705962487358199982_n.jpg?oh=0b5e2621e7a33851d8b04dde31ebb17a&oe=578B5D6C
Greyblades
03-21-2016, 17:21
I find it hard to believe that trump wining the republican primary is still in question.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-21-2016, 18:04
'blades:
Trump will arrive at the convention with the most delegates for a virtual certainty. However, there is a distinct possibility that he will be just short of the number required for nomination on the first ballot. If that first ballot fails to select a nominee, the large majority of delegates to the convention are then free to vote in favor of whomever they choose as nominee. It is not impossible for a person to be nominated even though they have not been campaigning for the Presidency at all. Current political pundits seem to think Paul Ryan would emerge as that "dark horse" and he would be persuaded to accept the nomination in much the same manner as he was persuaded to accept the Speakership.
'blades:
Trump will arrive at the convention with the most delegates for a virtual certainty. However, there is a distinct possibility that he will be just short of the number required for nomination on the first ballot. If that first ballot fails to select a nominee, the large majority of delegates to the convention are then free to vote in favor of whomever they choose as nominee. It is not impossible for a person to be nominated even though they have not been campaigning for the Presidency at all. Current political pundits seem to think Paul Ryan would emerge as that "dark horse" and he would be persuaded to accept the nomination in much the same manner as he was persuaded to accept the Speakership.
Yeah, that Paul Ryan thing is pretty strange:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSFJh8lTNkU
Seamus Fermanagh
03-21-2016, 18:59
I'd actually have been quite happen with a Ryan candidacy had he declared and run in the primaries. He's establishment enough to keep the party together; solidly conservative on the economic and foreign policy issues that matter to me; appropriately reluctant to legislate his morality for others on most issues; not so much of a purist that he would never make a reasonable deal solely because it involves working with the opposition; and is possessed of un-atrophied gray matter.
Selecting him out of the convention without a ground campaign in place is a LOT more problematic.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-21-2016, 19:10
How the Delegates are committed for the first ballot vote:
SOURCE (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-by.html)
Greyblades
03-21-2016, 21:33
'blades:
Trump will arrive at the convention with the most delegates for a virtual certainty. However, there is a distinct possibility that he will be just short of the number required for nomination on the first ballot. If that first ballot fails to select a nominee, the large majority of delegates to the convention are then free to vote in favor of whomever they choose as nominee. It is not impossible for a person to be nominated even though they have not been campaigning for the Presidency at all. Current political pundits seem to think Paul Ryan would emerge as that "dark horse" and he would be persuaded to accept the nomination in much the same manner as he was persuaded to accept the Speakership.
I cannot say i would be happy to see that happen. It seems like denying the voters their choice.
Paul Ryan himself seems like a David Cameron; a conservative politician who is utterly unremarkable in himself but is both semi competent and inoffensive enough to allow a grudging cooperation with some of the opposition. If america was going to have a hold over president until someone better came along I think he would be a better choice than clinton, but go have it happen like this against the voters wishes will ruin it.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-22-2016, 19:25
I cannot say i would be happy to see that happen. It seems like denying the voters their choice.
Paul Ryan himself seems like a David Cameron; a conservative politician who is utterly unremarkable in himself but is both semi competent and inoffensive enough to allow a grudging cooperation with some of the opposition. If america was going to have a hold over president until someone better came along I think he would be a better choice than clinton, but go have it happen like this against the voters wishes will ruin it.
Paul Ryan's personal story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan) is reasonably laudable, and while staunchly conservative, he is not rabidly so. I actually would be quite happy, from what I know today, to cast a vote for him for President.
However, he has said that he has no desire to take up the nomination and you are VERY much correct that a notable slice of GOP voters will be very disaffected if the party sidesteps all those who ran for the office in favor of someone who was not part of the process to date.
So Kasich didn't really get one third of the vote in Utah, but he beat Trump there, alright.
According to current numbers, Sanders got 57 delegates to Clinton's 51, which won't cut it for the Bern in the long run (he needs to win more than 60% of the remaining delegates on average).
Apparently this is doing a wave on Facebook -
http://theantimedia.org/wikileaks-drops-hillary-email-bomb-that-could-end-her-campaign-but-fb-censored-it/
Probably something Myth and Fisherking are more familar with?
According to the NYT overview (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0), there are 546 delegates up for grabs in California. Clinton's current lead is 303 delegates according to the same page. That would mean Sanders would only need 55.49% of the candidates in California in order to close the current gap between him and Clinton.
The latest poll (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary) shows Clinton being ahead in California by 7 percent (48-41), though; so it might not be realistic for him to pull that off.
Even so, Sanders might be able to narrow that gap significantly before California.
In sum, I'd say that it's way too early to assume that Clinton will win the nomination.
Hooahguy
03-25-2016, 03:15
Im pretty sure that I recall reading that he would need at least 60% of each remaining contest going forward to pull off the nomination.
Looks like NYT might have included superdelegates in the 546 count (475 without?), so then it is ~ 64%.
Calling Washington for Birdie Sanders with a big margin.
This could be a big day for Sanders.
Apparently this is doing a wave on Facebook -
http://theantimedia.org/wikileaks-drops-hillary-email-bomb-that-could-end-her-campaign-but-fb-censored-it/
Probably something Myth and Fisherking are more familar with?
Yes theres an email in regards to Google Hillary and Al jazeera and Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ntSzLXRiW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EorK3cWnPNQ
Seems like there is a new scandal developing: http://mic.com/articles/139052/bernie-sanders-supporters-called-out-media-whitewashing-with-bernie-made-me-white?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.iWELFngi4
"I think the media is purposely trying to portray Bernie as a white person's candidate in order to stop his growing support in the black community," Brisport, a black actor and SAT prep tutor, said. "I helped register over 200 college students to vote in Brooklyn last week. Mostly black and Latino. Overwhelming in support of Sanders. C'mon."
The frustrated rallied together under the hashtag #BernieMadeMeWhite, wondering what about their vote suddenly turned them white.
http://usuncut.com/politics/berniemademewhite-is-top-trend-and-it-is-hilarious/
Two of the last three states Bernie Sanders won by landslide margins — Alaska and Hawaii — are also very ethnically diverse. One-third of Alaska’s population is Native American, Asian, Black, Pacific Islander, or of mixed race. And three-fourths of Hawaii’s population is made up of people of color, with nearly 50 percent being Asian.
Furthermore, Washington State ranks among the ten most ethnically diverse states in the country. But this didn’t stop cable media pundits from belittling Bernie Sanders’ victories by falsely claiming that the populations of those states are mostly white in order to justify the false narrative that the Vermont senator is unable to connect to nonwhite voters.
https://twitter.com/InternetPalace/status/714225689881280512/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
This last image is intriguing, although I can't seem to access a higher resolution version to read what CNN actually wrote.
It really annoys me that twitter doesn't let you upload larger size images. I took a US government class a couple of semesters ago and the professor told us that just 5 companies own most of the media outlets here. I imagine Bernie's policies run counter to corporate interests so I guess it's not surprising that the media would be biased against him.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-29-2016, 19:23
Bernie Sanders is unlikely to secure the nomination, whereas all of the delegate numbers favor Clinton. Source (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html)
Assuming that Sanders gets all of the currently un-committed super-delegates, he would pick up another 210. He would still need to capture 1,172 of the remaining 1,833 delegates or 63.93%. So far, Sanders has only been able to manufacture delegate wins of that size in 3 states, 4 if you count New Hampshire. NONE of those wins came in a contest worth more than 35 delegates. In other words, the proportional primary process means that Sanders probably cannot win big enough to beat Clinton even if he wins all of the remaining contests because he will not win big enough to get to 64%.
His only real hope is to beat Clinton the rest of the way by 55% or so and then convince the currently committed to Clinton super-delegates to change their minds. This is possible, but strongly improbable.
Sarmatian
03-29-2016, 21:56
His only real hope is to beat Clinton the rest of the way by 55% or so and then convince the currently committed to Clinton super-delegates to change their minds. This is possible, but strongly improbable.
Indeed.
Nevertheless, he needs to keep the pressure on Clinton. He already forced her to the left on many issues. I never liked Clinton, and after watching her against Sanders, I think I'd despise her if I was an American democrat supporter.
She's the prototype career politician, not interested in anything but getting her butt in a chair. In fact, only person worthy of similar contempt is Donald Trump.
A question - how come it says there 101 delegate in Washington, but than it says Bernie 25 and Hillary 9? What happened with the rest?
Hooahguy
03-30-2016, 02:37
She's the prototype career politician, not interested in anything but getting her butt in a chair. In fact, only person worthy of similar contempt is Donald Trump.
So are all of them. Cruz is hated in the Senate because hes a classic political opportunist, such as the whole government shutdown. Kasich is still in the race because he thinks he has a shot at the convention, so its basically his ego talking. This is what politicians do. Even Sanders is the same way, its just a bit less apparent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dwiHyBEMfA&t=1h12m45s
Sarmatian
03-30-2016, 11:03
So are all of them. Cruz is hated in the Senate because hes a classic political opportunist, such as the whole government shutdown. Kasich is still in the race because he thinks he has a shot at the convention, so its basically his ego talking. This is what politicians do. Even Sanders is the same way, its just a bit less apparent.
I disagree. Trump and Clinton are in a separate league from the rest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dwiHyBEMfA&t=1h12m45s
I'm only halfway through, but so far I like how he explains things. I'd say it's what I always said but then again I'm not as eloquent as he is and he has a few interesting perspectives on things. The trickle up of wealth is well-explained, as well as the need for constant growth that becomes so obvious in Japan. I am curious now what he will say about other systems and if he offers a solution. So far it was well-worth seeing, although I skipped his early explanations about where he works and who to thank or whatever he said.
Hooahguy
03-30-2016, 14:31
I disagree. Trump and Clinton are in a separate league from the rest.
Well considering that colleagues of Cruz openly said you could murder him on the floor of the Senate and nobody would testify that it happened means a lot. Not even Hillary is described that way. I think if you would dig a bit deeper into Cruz you would see what I mean.
Personally I think that Cruz is more dangerous than Trump. If one actually looks at what he proposes, hes making massive cuts to basically everything except the military, raise the sales tax while cutting the taxes of the wealthy, he really is a snake oil salesman that only got so far because of Trump taking up all the time in the media. He has embraced the endorsements of people who advocate the murder of gay people and people who say that the Jews in the Holocaust had it coming because they didnt convert to Christianity. Once people start looking closer at Cruz they will see that he is just as bad as Trump, if not worse.
Strike For The South
03-30-2016, 15:13
Cruz is the last person who should be near any sort of power.
Sarmatian
03-30-2016, 17:20
Don't get me wrong, Cruz is a mental case, I don't disagree. He only got as far because the republican primary was basically a reality show.
He doesn't have a chance. Either Trump gets it, or someone else entirely. Kasich has a better chance than Cruz in that case. Nevertheless, even Cruz appears more honest and straightforward than her.
As it is now, it appears that the next POTUS will be whoever wins democratic nomination, which means Hillary most likely, which means no change, just endless demagogy.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-31-2016, 18:34
...A question - how come it says there 101 delegate in Washington, but than it says Bernie 25 and Hillary 9? What happened with the rest?
Only the precinct caucuses were held on the 26th, most of the delegates are -- at least formally -- selected later in the process. Washington State Dem Rules (http://www.wa-democrats.org/sites/wadems/files/documents/2016%20Caucus%20and%20Convention%20Press%20Guide%20-%20150915.pdf)
67 delegates will be selected at the congressional district meetings in May, the other 34 at the state convention thereafter. The 67 congressional district delegates tend to follow the proportions determined in the initial caucus pretty closely, the others are a bit more "back room" in how they are apportioned.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-31-2016, 18:55
Cruz is the last person who should be near any sort of power.
I am not nearly that negative about him.
All in all, though, I am getting ready for Clinton. Here's why:
On Dem side, most likely answer is a Clinton nomination on the first ballot with a modest majority of delegates.
Clinton would beat Trump if nominated because the GOP establishment will sponsor a Conservative 3rd party effort to siphon votes away from Trump thus guaranteeing his loss (to be fair, Clinton might edge him out without such). If Trump is not nominated, Trump will go 3rd party and will thus gut any other GOP candidate's chances. I simply do not see the GOP's best hope -- a conservative non-fruitbat reactionary such as Ryan or Toomey or Rubio -- getting a chance to face off against Clinton with a mostly united party behind them and no third-party effort. This is a shame as Clinton is not a particularly likeable candidate and could be defeated with a solid effort.
Clinton v Trump, with neither of them facing a 3rd party vote siphon, would likely end up with a Clinton win (narrowly) in the Electoral college -- but neither of them would get 50% of the vote. Trump COULD defeat her, but it is an uphill battle since traditional conservatives will stay home rather than vote for Donald and I don't think he would keep all of those union votes that he claims are his.
Should the weird factors align and the Democrats nominate Sanders, the outcomes become much more "in doubt."
Sanders facing off against a GOP un-burdened by a third party effort will lose -- the bulk of the USA isn't ready for a social democrat in charge.
However, Sanders facing off against a GOP candidate alongside a 3rd party Trump effort OR a Trump candidacy burdened by a 3rd party establishment effort, could might pull off a narrow win in the electoral college.
Sanders facing off against a Trump who does NOT have a GOP mainstream 3rd party slowing him down would be too close to call....but might favor Trump.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-31-2016, 19:02
I'm only halfway through, but so far I like how he explains things. I'd say it's what I always said but then again I'm not as eloquent as he is and he has a few interesting perspectives on things. The trickle up of wealth is well-explained, as well as the need for constant growth that becomes so obvious in Japan. I am curious now what he will say about other systems and if he offers a solution. So far it was well-worth seeing, although I skipped his early explanations about where he works and who to thank or whatever he said.
Of course you like him, to Germans he sounds like a garden-variety SPD or Die Linke candidate. By USA standards that's closer to the radical fringe than it is in Europe.
Of course you like him, to Germans he sounds like a garden-variety SPD or Die Linke candidate. By USA standards that's closer to the radical fringe than it is in Europe.
Actually a lot of what he criticizes about political parties working in favor of the rich would also apply to many SPD candidates. Remember when Gerhard Schröder greenlighted a pipeline, then lost his job as Bundeskanzler and then magically reappeared as a board member in the company for which he greenlighted the pipeline? Sometimes you don't even have to make the conspiracies up...
Sanders is now ahead in Wisconsin (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-wisconsin-presidential-democratic-primary) in all three of the latest polls. It also looks like some voters are coming off the fence in support of Sanders in New York (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-york-presidential-democratic-primary) (except from the strange Emerson poll, Clinton's support there has been rather steady), helping to close the gap there.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-10-2016, 15:48
Sanders won in Wyoming, excluding the "Super Delegates" pledged to Clinton that has whittled her lead down to 250, and the Dems have 291 Delegates up for grabs on 19/04/16 in New York. Depending on how Sanders fairs then we could see a radical shift in the Democratic race and once Sanders overtakes Clinton in the "bound" Delegates you can expect her "Super Delegates" to start to melt away, though not instantly.
If Sanders wins the Nomination and Trump comes out for the Republicans then I think Sanders has a better than even chance of winning.
Kralizec
04-11-2016, 23:46
Huma Abedin is hot.
That's all for today.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-12-2016, 16:58
Huma Abedin is hot.
That's all for today.
Concur, but have some doubt as to her judgment -- because Weiner is, well, a bit of a wiener.
Hooahguy
04-13-2016, 00:08
Sanders won in Wyoming, excluding the "Super Delegates" pledged to Clinton that has whittled her lead down to 250, and the Dems have 291 Delegates up for grabs on 19/04/16 in New York. Depending on how Sanders fairs then we could see a radical shift in the Democratic race and once Sanders overtakes Clinton in the "bound" Delegates you can expect her "Super Delegates" to start to melt away, though not instantly.
Im predicting a loss for Sanders, and it could be a big one. Its a closed primary, and demographically hes at a huge disadvantage. Hes leaving the country to visit the Vatican just days before the NY primary, a huge mistake really. Maybe he thinks that it will bolster him among Catholics, but Im reading that he wont be meeting the Pope and its only for a very short talk. Seems very pointless. Combine that with his obvious animosity towards the NY financial sector plus how the substantial liberal Jewish community in NY doesnt like him for a number of things, his stance on Israel being the most prominent.
As for the superdelegates, dont count on them switching even after the past seven wins. It will take something bigger than that, like winning NY and California. Hillary is still winning by well over two million popular votes. To illustrate this, the seven states he just won are something like 20 million people combined. Florida, which Hillary won by 30%, is also 20 million people. Just to get some perspective.
Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences invited him But according to Margaret Archer, the president of the Pontifical Academy, it was Sanders himself who "made the first move two or three days ago," showing "monumental discourtesy" in breaching standard protocol for Vatican invitation requests.
"Sanders made the first move, for the obvious reasons," Archer claims. "I think in a sense he may be going for the Catholic vote, but this is not the Catholic vote and he should remember that and act accordingly — not that he will."
Archer's claim, however, was contradicted the same day by a senior Vatican official, who asserts Sanders was in fact invited by the Vatican to speak at the April 15 conference. "I deny that," stated Msgr. Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, speaking of Archer's comments. "It was not that way."
Sorondo is the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and a close adviser to Pope Francis.
Monsignor Sorondo also went as far as to say it was he himself who had invited Sanders. "We are interested in having him because we have two presidents coming from Latin America [for the conference]. I thought it would be good to have an authoritative voice from North America." Sorondo additionally notes the invitation was extended "[q]uite some time ago."
The monsignor's claim is being supported by the Bernie Sanders campaign, with spokesman Michael Briggs calling Archer's comments "categorically untrue."
"The invitation came to the senator from the Vatican," Briggs asserts.
Papal spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi also states Sanders has been invited, but the spokesman attempted to distance Pope Francis from the event. "For the moment there is no expectation that there will also be a meeting with the Pope."
"I deny that. It was not that way," Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo told Reuters in a telephone interview while he was traveling in New York. Sorondo, a close aide to Pope Francis, is chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, which is hosting the event.
He said it was his idea to invite Sanders.
A Bloomberg report quoted Margaret Archer, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, as saying that Sanders had broken with protocol by failing to contact her office first.
"This is not true and she knows it. I invited him with her consensus," said Sorondo, who is senior to Archer.
The move has faced much backlash from faithful Catholics, as Sanders adamantly supports both abortion and same-sex "marriage." It is difficult, leading pro-life proponents claim, to criticize Catholic universities such as Georgetown and Notre Dame for inviting pro-abortion advocates like Joe Biden and Cecile Richards when Rome openly allows Sanders to be given such an honor. And then Bernie releases statement "delighted to have been invited by the Vatican to a meeting on restoring social justice and environmental sustainability to the world economy."
Very odd indeed! Maybe the Pope did invite him. Never seen the Pope get so involved in American politics before First he's saying Trump is not a Christian and now this. Plus to discuss social justice and socialism at the Centesimus Annus, an encyclical celebrating the collapse of Communism, what is this the Frankfurt School of critical theory now? Social Justice? Strange times
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-the-bum-who-wants-your-money/
Hooahguy
04-13-2016, 18:47
Either way it is a bad move by Sanders to leave for a couple days before the most important primary of the campaign for him.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-19-2016, 17:45
We will see; currently it is trending Clinton strongly in delegates even though only modestly in the popular.
Hooahguy
04-19-2016, 22:31
You would consider a lead of well over two million popular votes modest?
Hooahguy
04-20-2016, 23:04
So Clinton and Trump both won New York in a decisive way. Bernie's chances grow ever slimmer (to the point where the idea of him winning the nomination without the superdelegates is a delusion) and the GOP race will almost certainly go to convention.
Hooahguy
04-28-2016, 02:26
Trump swept the Acela Primaries, and Clinton only lost Rhode Island. Trump seems to be the definite nominee, and Sanders now has no realistic path to the nomination.
And today Trump did his second pre-written speech (the first one being at AIPAC) and while many were initially taken aback by how "presidential" he sounded, the speech was standard Trump-isms.
a completely inoffensive name
04-28-2016, 05:50
Trump will win in 2016.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-28-2016, 19:49
Trump not only won a plurality in the last six efforts, but a true (and in several places decisive) majority. Barring a sea-change in California, he is the presumptive GOP nominee. The only thing that could prevent his nomination now is for significant numbers of his delegates to not be certified at the convention. This could force a contested convention, but would be the kind of "smoke-filled room" games-playing that would seriously cheese off a number of voters. Like him or no, Trump will be the GOP standard bearer. It remains to be seen if there will still be a GOP when he is finished.
Clinton is just as likely to win the nomination as Trump, and need not fear a rules committee tossing her into the cold.
What will be decisive is whether one or more notable "3rd party" efforts are mounted -- none are likely to win, but they could siphon votes away from one of the major candidates in key states. Ralph Nader's Green Party run is what killed Gore in Florida in 2000 and got George W. into the oval office.
Hooahguy
04-29-2016, 02:36
Cruz made the interesting choice of Fiorina as his VP which is a bit early to do (probably won't pay off) but I've heard rumors that he might angle to run third party if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, aiming to create a Constitution Party or something along those lines. Considering that he's done things to screw over his allies to advance himself in the past, I wouldn't put it past him. Not to mention the fact that most of the GOP leadership loathes him (former speaker Boehner compared him to Lucifer today), I wouldn't expect any real loyalty to the party from him.
Trump will win in 2016.
It's hard to believe with his favorables so low in certain demographics- particularly women. But, I suppose it's possible. If the Democrats could have dredged up anyone more interesting than Hillary they would've won in a walk. It's telling that a 70+ year old socialist is the candidate that "excites" the youth vote.
I've done my fair share of nose-holding votes for the GOP candidate- but Trump will never get my vote. He's a con man and an obvious one at that. Seeing so many so-called conservatives get taken in by such blatant confidence schemes is deeply disappointing.
Cruz made the interesting choice of Fiorina as his VP which is a bit early to do (probably won't pay off) but I've heard rumors that he might angle to run third party if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, aiming to create a Constitution Party or something along those lines. Considering that he's done things to screw over his allies to advance himself in the past, I wouldn't put it past him. Not to mention the fact that most of the GOP leadership loathes him (former speaker Boehner compared him to Lucifer today), I wouldn't expect any real loyalty to the party from him.
I actually like Fiorina as a VP choice. However, most people see her choice for Cruz as a desperation move- probably because it is one.:sweatdrop:
Hooahguy
04-29-2016, 04:17
I actually like Fiorina as a VP choice. However, most people see her choice for Cruz as a desperation move- probably because it is one.:sweatdrop:
I think it was a poor choice by Cruz, even if it was done after he won the nomination. Fiorina doesnt really add anything to the ticket besides the fact that she is a woman. Shes not very likeable (neither is Cruz) and her business record isnt a great one. Just bring up her time at HP and that is really all one needs to discredit whatever claim she has of being good at business. Her whole career is really a fascinating one of failing upward.
Pannonian
04-29-2016, 08:41
It's hard to believe with his favorables so low in certain demographics- particularly women. But, I suppose it's possible. If the Democrats could have dredged up anyone more interesting than Hillary they would've won in a walk. It's telling that a 70+ year old socialist is the candidate that "excites" the youth vote.
I've done my fair share of nose-holding votes for the GOP candidate- but Trump will never get my vote. He's a con man and an obvious one at that. Seeing so many so-called conservatives get taken in by such blatant confidence schemes is deeply disappointing.
I actually like Fiorina as a VP choice. However, most people see her choice for Cruz as a desperation move- probably because it is one.:sweatdrop:
Over here in the UK, we've got a hard left (for the UK Labour party) arch-rebel (he's voted against the Labour party 500+ times in his parliamentary career, including 200+ times in the last 5 years of Labour government) who's leading the Labour party after a landslide leadership election, highlighted by particular enthusiasm among the youth vote.
HopAlongBunny
04-29-2016, 11:59
It looks like a Clinton vs. Trump cage match is set for our entertainment.
I am amazed at the degree of polarization in this election cycle.
When Trump announced, I told one person that there simply wasn't enough hate in the electorate to push him to the top; I stand embarrassed and corrected.
This is going to be awesome!!!
I think it was a poor choice by Cruz, even if it was done after he won the nomination. Fiorina doesnt really add anything to the ticket besides the fact that she is a woman. Shes not very likeable (neither is Cruz) and her business record isnt a great one. Just bring up her time at HP and that is really all one needs to discredit whatever claim she has of being good at business. Her whole career is really a fascinating one of failing upward.
To be fair, Trump isn't a particularly good businessman either. He could have taken his daddy's money and put it into index funds and he'd have a higher net worth than he does today. He is however, very good at self-promotion. :yes:
It looks like a Clinton vs. Trump cage match is set for our entertainment.
I am amazed at the degree of polarization in this election cycle.
When Trump announced, I told one person that there simply wasn't enough hate in the electorate to push him to the top; I stand embarrassed and corrected.
This is going to be awesome!!!Ever seen "In the Mouth of Madness"? The final scene comes to mind when I think of this election season...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6YMov3fYvs
It looks like a Clinton vs. Trump cage match is set for our entertainment.
I am amazed at the degree of polarization in this election cycle.
When Trump announced, I told one person that there simply wasn't enough hate in the electorate to push him to the top; I stand embarrassed and corrected.
This is going to be awesome!!!
Until January, when the realization hits that one of these sociopaths is in charge of the country.
HopAlongBunny
04-29-2016, 14:01
:clown: I'll be sitting ringside in Canada
Strike For The South
04-30-2016, 05:14
Burning the flag and sucker punching Trump supporters is how you make more Trump supporters.
Some might not mind, as it just gives them more infidels to attack. Others might not care, as their mind is focused on feeling righteous in their actions rather than achieving particular results.
Hooahguy
05-04-2016, 10:27
Ted Cruz has dropped out of the race after losing Indiana, leaving just Trump and Kasich (who is fourth in a two man race now) so it seems like Trump will be the GOP nominee. Even the head of the GOP said so on Twitter (https://twitter.com/Reince/status/727665447684820992), saying that the party needed to unite behind Trump to defeat Clinton.
On the other side, Sanders won Indiana with just over 52%, far short of the target he needed to catch up to Clinton. Which is yet another nail in the coffin for Sanders which he refuses to see, it seems, ignoring the math and the fact that Hillary spent no money on ads in Indiana and very little time campaigning there where Sanders spent a lot. Meanwhile he continues to attack Clinton and the DNC. This certainly is a fascinating turn of events because everyone thought that it would be the Democrats who would unite earlier and it would be the GOP which had a contested convention which would cause a ton of drama. But now it seems like it will be the opposite, especially if Sanders continues to attack Clinton and the DNC instead of pivoting to attack Trump. The more Bernie attacks Hillary the more divided the Democrats will seem and the easier it will be for Trump to go on the offensive.
Papewaio
05-04-2016, 11:15
Well I think the biggest winner is the media. The candidates total spend on the POTUS race is estimated to be $3-$5 billion and possibly double that when Super PACs are added. Most of this is in media from buttons to flyers to websites to TV airtime.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-04-2016, 16:26
So the presumptive nominees are Clinton and Trump. The edge goes to Clinton so far. Source (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll-general-election/)
After 28 years of GOP candidates who do not seem ardently conservative enough to the GOP base and 7 years of "watered down" TEA -- a notable slice of the GOP base, and quite a few folks in the old "Reagan democrat" category want the GOP as constituted to cease.
My 21-year-old son summed up the attitude that prevails among many in that group. His thoughts on the current system were "Just let it all burn."
Some interviews over here are suggesting that many Trump supporters would opt for Sanders as a second choice and vice versa -- despite the often antithetical policy positions those two men represent. The connecting theme? "4q<8 the current system."
My best bet is that Clinton wins handily in the electoral college (despite narrower percentages in PA, NY etc) and becomes president. If the GOP continues in it's disarray or splinters, this then yields a Social Democrat in the Presidency in 8 or 12 years (won't accept the label, but that's what they'll be). The SCOTUS will move to a Warren court level of activism. Their will be, functionally, four parties in the US though they won't use these labels -- Social Democrat, Traditional Democrat, Fiscal Conservatives, Social Reactionaries. The former two will be under the umbrella of the Democrat party and the relative power stance of each will shape most USA policy. The third group will be a minor element of the Democrats and a chunk of the Republican party. The Social Reactionaries may, or may not, end up constituting their own party.
Sad day for the Cruzlim believers.
Trump is definitely going to be the Republican candidate, but I'm not sure that this fascistoid has no chances of defeating Hillary.The distance between them will tend to shorten and perhaps it will become a very contested campaign, because of Trump's populism and Hillary's natural talent of becoming widely despised.
GeneralHankerchief
05-04-2016, 17:14
In further earth-shattering news, Kasich has also dropped out (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/john-kasich-drops-out/index.html).
I'll admit, I'm a little let down by all of this. I really wanted my bread-and-circuses this summer to take the form of a contested convention. Ah well.
My best bet is that Clinton wins handily in the electoral college (despite narrower percentages in PA, NY etc) and becomes president. If the GOP continues in it's disarray or splinters, this then yields a Social Democrat in the Presidency in 8 or 12 years (won't accept the label, but that's what they'll be). The SCOTUS will move to a Warren court level of activism. Their will be, functionally, four parties in the US though they won't use these labels -- Social Democrat, Traditional Democrat, Fiscal Conservatives, Social Reactionaries. The former two will be under the umbrella of the Democrat party and the relative power stance of each will shape most USA policy. The third group will be a minor element of the Democrats and a chunk of the Republican party. The Social Reactionaries may, or may not, end up constituting their own party.
It won't last though (all four groups being under two party banners). Canadian political parties were something like that until the 60's (Liberal party for the first two, Progressive conservatives for the last two). Then the social democrats formed their own party, the NDP. The social reactionaries then formed their own party (Reform > Canadian alliance) in the early 90's. Then a decade later they ate the fiscal conservatives and tried to wear their skin to win elections. And when that didn't work they actively suppressed their social reactionary tendencies and stressed the fiscal conservatism. And that leaves out the Quebec nationalist party that formed in 1988.
My point being the US is quite close to the current bi-polar (:stare:) left/right political parties fracturing into a left wing party, centrist party(ies), right wing party dynamic. At least for a time. What will for sure break it is a 3rd party candidate winning.
Hooahguy
05-04-2016, 18:22
In further earth-shattering news, Kasich has also dropped out (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/john-kasich-drops-out/index.html).
I'll admit, I'm a little let down by all of this. I really wanted my bread-and-circuses this summer to take the form of a contested convention. Ah well.
Never fear, with the GOP race finished, some Republicans are saying they will vote in the Democrat open primaries for Sanders just to make things interesting. We might get a brawl on the convention floor yet.
Kinda like the troll vs the antichrist now
Sarmatian
05-04-2016, 21:29
Kinda like the troll vs the antichrist now
Which is which?
Which is which?
I would say for certain hillary clinton is the antichrist, although i wouldn't call donald trump the Troll.
With Trump wrapping up the nomination, I can say confidently that for the first time, I will not be voting for the GOP presidential candidate. Feels.... kinda good actually.
I would say for certain hillary clinton is the antichrist, although i wouldn't call donald trump the Troll.
I couldn't find a better word but I meant it in a positive way. I like Trump even if he says some outragious things. What I like is that he simply doesn't need all the lobbyists, that has to be scary for some. For me as an European it's good as well as Trump isn't interested in Russia, the EU, and the middle-east. Go Trump. I can assure you that in the Netherlands at least want to send a LOT of politicians to blockflute-lessons instead of having them pushing buttons
Gilrandir
05-05-2016, 11:21
Kinda like the troll vs the antichrist now
Husar vs Brenus? They see eye to eye most of the times.
Husar vs Brenus? They see eye to eye most of the times.
Grow a thicker hide if you can't deal with sarcasm, you got the right to be rediculed at all times
Gilrandir
05-05-2016, 17:08
Grow a thicker hide if you can't deal with sarcasm, you got the right to be rediculed at all times
And I pay back with a vengeance. But my comment was sarcastic as well, bearing in mind how Husar is fond of trolling (so that it is sometimes different to detect if he is serious) and how proud Brenus is at flaunting his atheism.
And I pay back with a vengeance. But my comment was sarcastic as well, bearing in mind how Husar is fond of trolling (so that it is sometimes different to detect if he is serious) and how proud Brenus is at flaunting his atheism.
Do pay it back with vengaence if you can, or just apreciate the sarcasm, I don't mind it, I often deserve it
a completely inoffensive name
05-06-2016, 05:23
My 21-year-old son summed up the attitude that prevails among many in that group. His thoughts on the current system were "Just let it all burn."
Are we wrong?
Are we wrong?
Don't think so, no different in Europe a lot of people want the EU to be completily dismanntled, chaos would be ok.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-13-2016, 15:52
Are we wrong?
Not entirely. The problem with trashing an existing system is the two fold. First, after the glee of trashing the current annoyances you have the transition costs of gettint a newnsystem in place. The second concern is that the new system Ll too often tends to be the same as the old system (new labels usually) in rapid order thus nullifying the desired change...but not the cost.
Hooahguy
05-21-2016, 18:04
God Bernie has to be incredibly dumb and/or tone-deaf to believe half the junk he is spewing. Seriously, watch this drivel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COeJ1f36W5g&google_comment_id=z12pchrqsw2kfnzff23lhllwptfdzjw2p).
He starts off by saying he won 46% of the pledged delegates. Then says he has about 7% of the superdelegates and how undemocratic they are and that same tired line. Does he not realize that he would still be losing anyways? How can he say he is the stronger candidate? If he really was the stronger candidate he would be winning against Hillary. But hes not. Ignoring the delegates, hes behind by almost 3 million in popular votes. So why on earth would they ever switch to him? It truly defies common sense.
God Bernie has to be incredibly dumb and/or tone-deaf to believe half the junk he is spewing. Seriously, watch this drivel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COeJ1f36W5g&google_comment_id=z12pchrqsw2kfnzff23lhllwptfdzjw2p).
He starts off by saying he won 46% of the pledged delegates. Then says he has about 7% of the superdelegates and how undemocratic they are and that same tired line. Does he not realize that he would still be losing anyways? How can he say he is the stronger candidate? If he really was the stronger candidate he would be winning against Hillary. But hes not. Ignoring the delegates, hes behind by almost 3 million in popular votes. So why on earth would they ever switch to him? It truly defies common sense.
Eh, he's saying that it is not fair if 91% of the superdelegates choose a candidate before the race has even begun. What he implies I assume is that this can make people believe that noone else is going to win anyway and then a significant portion of voters will vote for the candidate backed by all the superdelegates. Which they may not do if the superdelegates didn't back anyone until the convention for example.
He may be very stubborn but I agree with him if that is his point, it's a psychological manipulation of the voters. Of course noone says that a party-internal election of a candidate has to be super-democratic, but if it's supposed to be, this is not the way to go about it.
And why does it bug people so much that he stays until the actual vote for the candidate? Is that not in theory how it is supposed to be? Otherwise noone but Hillary could have run in the first place since she was going to win anyway, especially with all the superdelegates she already had....and if it works like that every year, welcome to Chinese-style "democracy"? :creep:
Hooahguy
05-21-2016, 22:38
Eh, he's saying that it is not fair if 91% of the superdelegates choose a candidate before the race has even begun. What he implies I assume is that this can make people believe that noone else is going to win anyway and then a significant portion of voters will vote for the candidate backed by all the superdelegates. Which they may not do if the superdelegates didn't back anyone until the convention for example.
He may be very stubborn but I agree with him if that is his point, it's a psychological manipulation of the voters. Of course noone says that a party-internal election of a candidate has to be super-democratic, but if it's supposed to be, this is not the way to go about it.
His campaign results prove otherwise. Clearly he managed to get plenty of people to come out for him despite the supposed bias. Also there is the 2008 situation when superdelegates switched from Hillary to Obama when they were convinced that he was the stronger candidate in the end. So its not set in stone, Bernie has had over a year to convince the superdelegates that he is the stronger candidate. But he hasnt, and he is behind by almost 3 million popular votes. Not because things were rigged against him, but because he successfully alienated minority voters which are crucial for victory. No reason that the supers shouldnt declare who they think is the better candidate off the bat.
And why does it bug people so much that he stays until the actual vote for the candidate? Is that not in theory how it is supposed to be? Otherwise noone but Hillary could have run in the first place since she was going to win anyway, especially with all the superdelegates she already had....and if it works like that every year, welcome to Chinese-style "democracy"? :creep:
Its one thing to stay in and advocate your positions in an attempt to change the party platform. Its another thing to stay in, cry about how the DNC is unfair because he is losing, and keep driving wedges within the party. Thats why people are mad. Not that hes advocating for certain policies, but that hes saying its all corrupt and the only reason he is losing is because of how corrupt things are. Oh and lets not forget the harassment of Democrat officials and superdelegates which Bernie refuses to take responsibility for despite him saying that Trump was responsible for the actions of his supporters. Bernie's advisers have come out saying that they have the blinders on and do not care what harm they might do to Hillary in the process. In private he is telling Democrats that he knows he lost. But in public he says the opposite. At a rally last week, the chant "Bernie or bust" went up and Bernie said nothing to hush them or say anything that would make people think he would really support Clinton in the general. That is why so many people are angry at him and are calling on him to at least be honest about his chances to his supporters.
His campaign results prove otherwise. Clearly he managed to get plenty of people to come out for him despite the supposed bias.
You can't know what would have happened had Clinton not been handled as the sure winner by almost everyone from the beginning. It is entirely possible that people voted for her thinking she has the better chances anyway who would actually prefer Sanders otherwise. What I'm saying is there is no proof either way.
Also there is the 2008 situation when superdelegates switched from Hillary to Obama when they were convinced that he was the stronger candidate in the end. So its not set in stone, Bernie has had over a year to convince the superdelegates that he is the stronger candidate. But he hasnt, and he is behind by almost 3 million popular votes. Not because things were rigged against him, but because he successfully alienated minority voters which are crucial for victory. No reason that the supers shouldnt declare who they think is the better candidate off the bat.
All of America is rigged against a socialist, no need to try to convince me that nothing is rigged. :laugh4: :clown:
Its one thing to stay in and advocate your positions in an attempt to change the party platform. Its another thing to stay in, cry about how the DNC is unfair because he is losing, and keep driving wedges within the party. Thats why people are mad. Not that hes advocating for certain policies, but that hes saying its all corrupt and the only reason he is losing is because of how corrupt things are. Oh and lets not forget the harassment of Democrat officials and superdelegates which Bernie refuses to take responsibility for despite him saying that Trump was responsible for the actions of his supporters. Bernie's advisers have come out saying that they have the blinders on and do not care what harm they might do to Hillary in the process. In private he is telling Democrats that he knows he lost. But in public he says the opposite. At a rally last week, the chant "Bernie or bust" went up and Bernie said nothing to hush them or say anything that would make people think he would really support Clinton in the general. That is why so many people are angry at him and are calling on him to at least be honest about his chances to his supporters.
Yeah, well, the Trump presidency will be interesting... :creep:
Hooahguy
05-22-2016, 00:43
You can't know what would have happened had Clinton not been handled as the sure winner by almost everyone from the beginning. It is entirely possible that people voted for her thinking she has the better chances anyway who would actually prefer Sanders otherwise. What I'm saying is there is no proof either way.
Okay, so Clinton announced her candidacy in mid-April. Sanders announced that he would run at the end of that month, but at the time he was rather unknown, being an independent from Vermont. Even from the start the Democratic party didnt like him for his actions in congress and his lack of support for other Democrats. After all, Bernie only joined the Democratic Party to hop on their ticket. But that is besides the point. I think that the turnout for Bernie is a testament that the early endorsements had little to no effect. If Bernie truly was the stronger candidate, the popular vote would have shown that. But he is not, and the superdelegates are merely putting their vote towards the candidate who they think has the best shot at winning in November. Sure, we can go down the conspiracy route, but then we might as well say that Hillary is an evil Nazi robot who has been preserved since 1945 for the sole purpose of defeating a socialist candidate.
:clown:
All of America is rigged against a socialist, no need to try to convince me that nothing is rigged.
Well yes, socialism is still viewed very negatively here. It might also have something to do with the fact that Bernie is a very weak candidate in general in the sense that he cannot articulate his policy positions, and has consistently shown poor understanding of how financial and political systems work. His speeches all sound very similar, he always pivots back to income inequality as the root of all problems (which is a big reason why he lost the African-American community) and even in interviews he has shown that he doesnt actually know what he is talking about beyond his stump speech. So tell me why people should be convinced by Bernie's arguments. I think that socialism can make headway in the US, I just think that Bernie was a poor candidate to do so.
Yeah, well, the Trump presidency will be interesting... :creep:
Do you honestly think that Trump will win? The only way I see that happening is if there is a major terror attack (in the US or Europe) right before the election.
Hillary is an evil Nazi robot who has been preserved since 1945 for the sole purpose of defeating a socialist candidate.
Probably true. :no:
income inequality as the root of all problems
Apart from cancer and a few other medical conditions this is true, I get there very often myself without even wanting to when I think about why this or that is a problem. Most forms of violence come from income inequality. Even when people are violent because of lead poisoning, they got the lead poisoning from income inequality in the first place. The world wide pursuit of income inequality has poisoned the oceans with plastic, the air with green house gases and the minds of the people with envy. Perhaps we are biologically programmed for income inequality but that ain't mean it's not the cause of most of are problems, ya'know.
Do you honestly think that Trump will win? The only way I see that happening is if there is a major terror attack (in the US or Europe) right before the election.
And why would it not be in the interest of e.g. ISIS to get us exactly there?
Hooahguy
05-22-2016, 02:35
Apart from cancer and a few other medical conditions this is true, I get there very often myself without even wanting to when I think about why this or that is a problem. Most forms of violence come from income inequality. Even when people are violent because of lead poisoning, they got the lead poisoning from income inequality in the first place. The world wide pursuit of income inequality has poisoned the oceans with plastic, the air with green house gases and the minds of the people with envy. Perhaps we are biologically programmed for income inequality but that ain't mean it's not the cause of most of are problems, ya'know.
Sure in the grand scheme things it probably is, but to minority communities (and I think most people in America, which is why Hillary is winning) they need more than trickle down income inequality promises. I wish I could remember the article but basically it said that the African American community are tired of the pie in the sky promises that people like Bernie peddle, as they have heard them before and they never come through. Also Bernie has said dumb things like insinuating that all Black people are poor and live in ghettos. Meanwhile the Clintons have spent their entire careers building a close relationship with the African American community that is now paying off. This is a good article (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707) about the issue. Point is that most people just arent buying these huge promises being made. Many people bought them in 2008 and look how that turned out.
And why would it not be in the interest of e.g. ISIS to get us exactly there?
Who knows, they probably would want to. I certainly hope the Western police and intelligence services can prevent any such attack from happening at all.
EDIT: Articles like this (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Bernie-Sanders-has-no-strategy-for-his-war-on-big-7872811.php) dont help his case either.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-22-2016, 15:55
Some of the latest polls have Trump equaling or surpassing Clinton in support among likely voters. Enjoy the media trying to make a close race out of it so that they can sell ad dollars and justify the continued political reportage.
Barring some kind of major "event" that alters the shape of electoral thinking, the race at the real point of decision -- the Electoral College -- favors Clinton by a decided (though not quite yet decisive) margin.
A good source for state-by-state information (http://www.270towin.com/states/).
Drilling down a bit into the polls, noting that Trump is drawing in new/young voters etc., I break it out as follows (remember, the magic number is 270 of 538):
Safe Democrat States in the General: CA-55, DC-3, HI-4, ME-3 (overall plus 1st dist), MD-10, MA-11, NY-29, OR-7, RI-4, V-3- WA-12 [141 total].
Likely Democrat States in the General: CT-7, DE-3, IL-20, ME-1 (2nd dist), MN-10, NJ-14, NM-5, VA-13, WI-10 [83 total].
Clinton likely EC votes 224.
Safe Republican States in the General: AL-9, AK-3, AR-6, ID-4, KS-6, KY-8, LA-8, MS-6, MT-3, NE-4 (overall plus dist. 1 & 3), ND-3, OK-7, SD-3, TN-11, WV-5, WY-3 [89 total].
Likely Republican Sates in the General: AZ-11, GA-16, IN-11, SC-9, TX-38, NE-1 (2nd dist) [86 total].
Trump likely EC votes 175.
States too close to call in the General: CO-9, FL-29, IA-6, MI-16, MO-10, NV-6, NH-4, NC-15, OH-18, PA-20, UT-6 (most say likely republican, I do not) [139 total]
To get to 270, Clinton needs to win 46 of the 139 too close to call states (and I am being generous in my assessment of Trump's chances in PA and MI.
To get to 270, Trump needs to win 95 of the 139 -- effectively he has to run much of the too close to call table, which is tough indeed.
Yes, Trump jumps up GOP votes in states where they haven't been competitive for the last few elections by being a "different" Republican. But the 5-10% swing in votes isn't enough in states where Dems often hold a 12-15 point advantage. Clinton will win those states less handily (51-47 as opposed to 62-37) but she will still win them and all of their electoral college votes. Only Maine and Nebraska use "partials" in the Electoral College. The rest are winner take all.
And Yes, Husar, you are correct that the USA is geared up to stop socialists from succeeding politically in a broad way. I would argue the barrier is more cultural than political system structure though.
Hooahguy
05-22-2016, 17:31
Some of the latest polls have Trump equaling or surpassing Clinton in support among likely voters. Enjoy the media trying to make a close race out of it so that they can sell ad dollars and justify the continued political reportage.
That is true, but personally I dont put any faith in election polling until the conventions. Looking at the polling averages, we see a bump in the polling for Trump as even the #nevertrump people are falling in behind him. I imagine once the Democrats end their process as well the polls will change.
Kralizec
05-22-2016, 20:50
Trump is going to get demolished. Hillary has been attacked by republicans for 20+ years, people already know the dirt. In recent years there's been the Benghazi and e-mail "controversies", but especially in the former that's just republicans trying to make mountains out of molehills.
The Donald has a mass grave of skeletons in his closet. For instance, his associations with mob related people (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910). Granted, it's old news, but it hasn't been covered extensively...yet. Rubio's and Cruzifer's (teehee) attacks will seem minor compared to what Trump will be exposed to in the general election.
In addition, people like Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham might not be the most popular figures nationwide, but nevertheless a lot of people still listen to what they say. Like when they catagorically refused to support Trump.
Of course, most political analysts have been wrong about Trump since the beginning of the primary season. Luckily I'm not a political analyst.
If bernie becomes independent Trump wins, if its hillary vs trump trump wins, If romney runs independent trump loses
Hooahguy
05-22-2016, 23:49
If bernie becomes independent Trump wins, if its hillary vs trump trump wins, If romney runs independent trump loses
Bernie has said he wont go independent before, but at this point who really knows. Romney said he wont run so I would be shocked if he did, and I think you are way off when you say Trump beats Clinton. I think it might be close but I think you are overestimating his chances.
This email server stuff... does anyone other than a hardcore GOP believer really give a ****?
Seamus Fermanagh
05-26-2016, 16:45
This email server stuff... does anyone other than a hardcore GOP believer really give a ****?
At present, no. It is patently obvious that she bent the rules -- but she is not alone in having done so. It is patently obvious that they dithered over what to do about Benghazi until it was too late -- but this too has happened before in various forms. Of itself, it is, as you say, nothing more than red meat for the "already convinced to hate her" side of the GOP.
The only lingering concern for Clinton is the FBI investigation. Only the FBI's rep as politically neutral AND a damning investigation result would pose a real problem. If the FBI offers up anything along the lines of "broke the rules but did not expose the country to undo risk" then this fades away like a zephyr.
Since I expect that result, I am mildly surprised that the POTUS hasn't pushed the FBI to publish a result already and put paid to the whole thing.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-26-2016, 16:59
If bernie becomes independent Trump wins, if its hillary vs trump trump wins, If romney runs independent trump loses
Agreed regarding the impact of the third party candidacies (though I would not expect Romney to do it personally). I disagree with your assessment of the general election absent such a third party bid however. Even if Trump wins the popular vote, I do not believe he can win in the electoral college against her in a 1-v-1.
Now the REALLY fun conspiracy theory to spin out is having BOTH major candidates facing "third" party opposition (Lefty Dems with Bernie, Righty GOP with Ryan or whoever). Were THAT to really play out, you might end up with Paul Ryan elected President by the House of Representatives -- the GOP has a significant State by State advantage in the house and each state gets one vote, that vote being the result of the internal decision of the state delegation, making Wyoming would be the equal of California -- with the house mandated to choose from the top three candidates as measured by electoral votes cast in the College of Electors. The Vice President in such an instance would be decided, again from among the top three vote getters in the Electoral College for VP, though the Senate would decide by normal majority vote. You could even see an executive branch headed by Ryan and Hillary's Veep nominee.
And how much truth do you think there is that Sanders voters are more likely to defect to Trump than Hillary? Or are they more likely to no-show?
Pannonian
05-26-2016, 18:01
Agreed regarding the impact of the third party candidacies (though I would not expect Romney to do it personally). I disagree with your assessment of the general election absent such a third party bid however. Even if Trump wins the popular vote, I do not believe he can win in the electoral college against her in a 1-v-1.
Now the REALLY fun conspiracy theory to spin out is having BOTH major candidates facing "third" party opposition (Lefty Dems with Bernie, Righty GOP with Ryan or whoever). Were THAT to really play out, you might end up with Paul Ryan elected President by the House of Representatives -- the GOP has a significant State by State advantage in the house and each state gets one vote, that vote being the result of the internal decision of the state delegation, making Wyoming would be the equal of California -- with the house mandated to choose from the top three candidates as measured by electoral votes cast in the College of Electors. The Vice President in such an instance would be decided, again from among the top three vote getters in the Electoral College for VP, though the Senate would decide by normal majority vote. You could even see an executive branch headed by Ryan and Hillary's Veep nominee.
Wouldn't the House of Reps be obliged, unofficially at least, to give the candidate with the biggest conventional share first dibs at forming a government? HM can theoretically dissolve and offer government at will, but in the event of a non-majority custom gives the party with the biggest share in the Commons first dibs at forming a coalition.
And how much truth do you think there is that Sanders voters are more likely to defect to Trump than Hillary? Or are they more likely to no-show?
Mostly anti-globablists just like Trump, wouldn't surprise me if they do
Kralizec
05-26-2016, 20:34
Mostly anti-globablists just like Trump, wouldn't surprise me if they do
The overwhelming feeling of Sanders' natural electorate is that Trump is a tremendous hypocrite when it comes to this subject. A lot of stuff he sells and uses is made overseas, often in China. And in the 1980's Trump Tower was built using illegal Polish workers who earned 3 dollars on the hour (this is tied in with those mob connections I mentioned earlier)
The more you read up on his past, the more of a miracle it seems that this sack of sh*t is the Republican nominee. Did his primary opponents not press him on his past enough? Were the primary voters willfully oblivious?
The more you read up on his past, the more of a miracle it seems that this sack of sh*t is the Republican nominee. Did his primary opponents not press him on his past enough? Were the primary voters willfully oblivious?
They are not oblivious, they know it full willing. Trump is the American dream, he is like a lannister, he craps gold.
Trump researched and spoke to what the average working man and woman wanted.
I'm holding out hope that both candidates lose. :sweatdrop:
Our two-party system (and their respective candidates) sucks... which is why I'll be settling on a third party to vote for in November.
The more you read up on his past, the more of a miracle it seems that this sack of sh*t is the Republican nominee. Did his primary opponents not press him on his past enough? Were the primary voters willfully oblivious?
He got free pub from the media (who he manipulated like a pro), and his GOP opponents were not exactly attractive alternatives. Unfortunately the Dems couldn't find anyone better than Hillary, so we are stuck with the Kodos v Kang situation.
a completely inoffensive name
05-27-2016, 04:53
Why would anyone refuse to vote in what is definitely the most democratic presidential election the US has had in a long time?
The overwhelming feeling of Sanders' natural electorate is that Trump is a tremendous hypocrite when it comes to this subject. A lot of stuff he sells and uses is made overseas, often in China. And in the 1980's Trump Tower was built using illegal Polish workers who earned 3 dollars on the hour (this is tied in with those mob connections I mentioned earlier)
The more you read up on his past, the more of a miracle it seems that this sack of sh*t is the Republican nominee. Did his primary opponents not press him on his past enough? Were the primary voters willfully oblivious?
I look at the silver ligning, Trump isn't interested in messing with Russia, that alone is best for everyone, especially us euro's. Because he doesn't care about Europe either we will finally have to build up a decent military force instead of wasting money on leftist hobby's.
I'm holding out hope that both candidates lose. :sweatdrop:
Our two-party system (and their respective candidates) sucks... which is why I'll be settling on a third party to vote for in November.
But surely the US is the greatest democracy in the world? ;)
Trump researched and spoke to what the average working man and woman wanted.
Yes, he exposes the lack of education the American School System provides, it's really sad in what a sad state the US are, just like Trump says. Let's hope he fixes that and raises people to a level of education where they are educated enough not to vote for him anymore.
Yes, he exposes the lack of education the American School System provides, it's really sad in what a sad state the US are, just like Trump says. Let's hope he fixes that and raises people to a level of education where they are educated enough not to vote for him anymore.
Reagan was mocked as well. You don't need to worry, people are already educated to not vote on people who make perfect sense, or should I say indoctrinated YOUSOSMART
WOOF
Reagan was mocked as well. You don't need to worry, people are already educated to not vote on people who make perfect sense, or should I say indoctrinated YOUSOSMART
WOOF
People are indoctrinated not to vote for people who make sense? So your opinion of the US school system is even worse?
People are indoctrinated not to vote for people who make sense? So your opinion of the US school system is even worse?
When it comes to political correctness? Yes. America as a whole is even more a limb dick because of it than europe. That's why I like Trump.
AE Bravo
05-28-2016, 01:46
Not sure why some of you are counting Trump out. Clinton's campaign might be going up in flames, even MSNBC is grilling her.
Strike For The South
05-28-2016, 05:04
Many Sanders supporters are middle class white people who value "burning it down" more than any coherent platform. I could see many of them defecting to Trump. Now will it make any difference in the states that it needs to? IDK.
Hooahguy
06-07-2016, 02:16
Clinton has reportedly clinched the Democratic nomination. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36466228)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.