POTUS Election thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

...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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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 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 (except from the strange Emerson poll, Clinton's support there has been rather steady), helping to close the gap there.

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.

Huma Abedin is hot.

That's all for today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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/ed...ts-your-money/

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.

We will see; currently it is trending Clinton strongly in delegates even though only modestly in the popular.

You would consider a lead of well over two million popular votes modest?

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.

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.

Trump will win in 2016.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

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...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6YMov3fYvs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

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.

:clown: I'll be sitting ringside in Canada

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.

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, 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.

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.

So the presumptive nominees are Clinton and Trump. The edge goes to Clinton so far. Source

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.