The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Knife]

I will reiterate what I have said again and again. I recognize it is very unlikely for Sanders to win. It is technically possible for him to win. Their is no contradiction between those positions, and both are based in fact.

Again you keep clinging to this "technical possibility" as if it actually means anything.

The reasoning for RR and others, which I am sympathetic too, is the system is broken and people are being 'nominated' before everyone votes which is wrong. It suppress the vote for people when they are told before it is their turn that it is over. Sure, with statistics, you can calculate the probability of the result and tally those to forecast who wins what and the probability of Sanders is really fucking low right now. But by broadcasting this you are depressing the vote of others who would like to stand up for their man/woman skewing the results. You can say that because of math xyz you are right (which wold be true) but it doesn't change the fact that it is still suppressing the vote because people are told their guy/girl lost before it was their turn to vote, which pisses off some people (and they are right to be so).

The whole system is broke. The easiest way to fix it, in this instance, is just a one day national primary where everyone votes. You'd still get the phenomenon like in General Elections where due to time zones, people would still be told their guy/girl lost before their voting was done though. Perhaps make it a national holiday and schedule to account for time zones. I don't know.

[The Romulan Republic]

My thoughts are similar regarding how the primary should be run, regarding a single national primary.

Hold a one-day nation-wide semi-open (i.e. independents can participate but not members of other parties) primary in May, with a run-off in June if no candidate gets a majority. Registration deadlines should be fairly generous. Outcome determined by popular vote. Maybe a prohibition on declaring results until all polls have closed to address the turnout depression issue.

Ditch the caucuses and super delegates entirely. Or have the super delegates only for voting on the party platform (since that's something you can't really put to a single nation-wide vote) and for tie-breakers.

[Flagg]

I will reiterate what I have said again and again. I recognize it is very unlikely for Sanders to win. It is technically possible for him to win. Their is no contradiction between those positions, and both are based in fact.

Again you keep clinging to this "technical possibility" as if it actually means anything.

The reasoning for RR and others, which I am sympathetic too, is the system is broken and people are being 'nominated' before everyone votes which is wrong. It suppress the vote for people when they are told before it is their turn that it is over. Sure, with statistics, you can calculate the probability of the result and tally those to forecast who wins what and the probability of Sanders is really fucking low right now. But by broadcasting this you are depressing the vote of others who would like to stand up for their man/woman skewing the results. You can say that because of math xyz you are right (which wold be true) but it doesn't change the fact that it is still suppressing the vote because people are told their guy/girl lost before it was their turn to vote, which pisses off some people (and they are right to be so).

The whole system is broke. The easiest way to fix it, in this instance, is just a one day national primary where everyone votes. You'd still get the phenomenon like in General Elections where due to time zones, people would still be told their guy/girl lost before their voting was done though. Perhaps make it a national holiday and schedule to account for time zones. I don't know.

Yeah, unfortunately we have the following number of federal elections in this country: 0
And you can't stop broadcasters from revealing who won't each state due to the following amendment to the US Constitution: 1

To change either needs a constitutional amendment and I don't see that happening.

Though I'm in total agreement with the sentiment.

[Grumman]

And you can't stop broadcasters from revealing who won't each state due to the following amendment to the US Constitution: 1

To change either needs a constitutional amendment and I don't see that happening.

There is a trivially simple solution to that problem that you're missing that does not require a constitutional amendment: don't tell the press the result until the voting's over. Broadcasters cannot reveal what they don't know, and an NDA that only demands your New York staff keep quiet about their results for a dozen hours until your Hawaii staff start counting is not an unreasonable infringement on their own First Amendment rights.

[Gandalf]

But then won't they rely exclusively on their exit polling data to project winners?

[Flagg]

But then won't they rely exclusively on their exit polling data to project winners?

Yarp. Plus keeping a lid on the vote would make it really easy for election fraud.

[Knife]

But then won't they rely exclusively on their exit polling data to project winners?

Yarp. Plus keeping a lid on the vote would make it really easy for election fraud.

Nah, we're talking to keep the lid on for a couple hours to compensate for time zones, not days or weeks.

[Flagg]

But then won't they rely exclusively on their exit polling data to project winners?

Yarp. Plus keeping a lid on the vote would make it really easy for election fraud.

Nah, we're talking to keep the lid on for a couple hours to compensate for time zones, not days or weeks.

Some states take days or weeks, like mine (WA) that does mail-in balloting and as long as it's postmarked Election Day, it counts. So if it's really about counting every vote, then you'd need to have a gag order for as long as until even absentee ballots are counted.

I mean like I said, I like the sentiment, but Alaska and Hawaii don't decide elections. Once a candidate has enough for the electoral college or the nomination, why not call it?

[Gaidin]

The AP has apparently been on the phone with the supers all day and guess what. Clinton and Bernie are getting trolled.

[Mr Bean]

The AP has apparently been on the phone with the supers all day and guess what. Clinton and Bernie are getting trolled.

It's been the standard so far whenever the campaign feels a foregone conclusion a mass of Clinton votes fails to show up. It would be highly ironic if we get a repeat of Michigan again after all these effort to try and stop the campaign before the final voting block tomorrow.

[Flagg]

According to NBCnews.com and others, Clinton has it, primary over.

[maraxus2]

It's been the standard so far whenever the campaign feels a foregone conclusion a mass of Clinton votes fails to show up. It would be highly ironic if we get a repeat of Michigan again after all these effort to try and stop the campaign before the final voting block tomorrow.

Like after March 15th, when it was a foregone conclusion? Bernie could win California by 50 points and it wouldn't matter, since Clinton's going to win NJ by double digits and will get her over the line.

Stick a fork in, it's all over.

[Mr Bean]

Like after March 15th, when it was a foregone conclusion? Bernie could win California by 50 points and it wouldn't matter, since Clinton's going to win NJ by double digits and will get her over the line.

Stick a fork in, it's all over.

Funny you say that, I had to do the math but if Bernie won California would by that mythical fifty point win secure the pledged delegate lead and the popular vote lead in one state.

But again assuming it's over? You think he's gone? he's never gone! (Until I believe it's July 27th when the vote officially happens on the Democratic candidate for president)

[maraxus2]

snip wank

Yeah yeah. All Bernie'd have to do is win 100% of the votes in California. Keep on fighting, Hiroo Onoda. Everyone else is gonna move on. I fully expect the remaining folks who haven't declared their support to come out for Clinton this week, including Elizabeth Warren and President Obama.

[Flagg]

Like after March 15th, when it was a foregone conclusion? Bernie could win California by 50 points and it wouldn't matter, since Clinton's going to win NJ by double digits and will get her over the line.

Stick a fork in, it's all over.

Funny you say that, I had to do the math but if Bernie won California would by that mythical fifty point win secure the pledged delegate lead and the popular vote lead in one state.

But again assuming it's over? You think he's gone? he's never gone! (Until I believe it's July 27th when the vote officially happens on the Democratic candidate for president)

Yes, you posted that quote. Clinton is a bad person, we know. But at this point it's almost like you're rooting for it. I'm sure you're better than that, no?

[Mr Bean]

Yes, you posted that quote. Clinton is a bad person, we know. But at this point it's almost like you're rooting for it. I'm sure you're better than that, no?

I've said this a time or two in the distant past and it bears repeating now. I'm not here for good government, regardless of who I vote for unless my vote comes with a fifty thousand dollar donation then man or woman I vote for does not care about my issues, most don't care about the country only their own little petty power games and continuing to get elected.

No I follow elections for the show, for the spectacle that started twelve years ago with the Swift Boating of John Kerry when networks gave on objective reporting and embraced WE ASK SOMETHING IS IT TRUE? headline writing nonsense that passes for coverage these days. My two picks of Jim Webb and Vermine Supreme (He's been running long enough it's time to give Vermine a chance!) long since departed the race, I've followed it since because Trump's and Sanders have made it far more interesting than it could have been.

Don't get me wrong I'm a little said we never got the Macro VS Ted Cruz one on one prize fight that could have been. But without Sanders this would have ended in a Clinton win in February. Forgive me for not wanting to turn the show off when we've got one more segment left tomorrow evening before the end credits.

*Edit I'll throw this in here from February MSNBC DNC Chair explains why the media should not count super-delegates into vote totals.

I post this ONLY because I've heard the media is hounding DWS to call the election for Clinton based on Superdelegates and we are currently waiting to see if she will do so tomorrow before the voting starts or if she will admonish the media stop doing it again.

[maraxus2]

Don't get me wrong I'm a little said we never got the Macro VS Ted Cruz one on one prize fight that could have been. But without Sanders this would have ended in a Clinton win in February. Forgive me for not wanting to turn the show off when we've got one more segment left tomorrow evening before the end credits.

This is a healthy attitude.

For his part, Bernie ignored the AP's call at a SF rally earlier today.

Link

By Robert Costa June 6 at 11:58 PM
San Francisco — Unbridled fury about the media and the Democratic establishment rippled through a crowd of Bernie Sanders
supporters here Monday following reports that Hillary Clinton had clinched the Democratic presidential nomination.
As thousands gathered on the lip of San Francisco Bay on a cold, foggy night, there were angry shouts as people thumbed
through news stories on their phones, many of them turning to each other in exasperation to read aloud articles to fellow rallygoers.
The scene at Crissy Field was an apt emblem of the progressive movement that Sanders has led over the past year, an ascent
that saw the 74­year­old senator from Vermont rise from being a long shot to a national political force who has roused
millions.
Many of the people who were spread out on the grass said they are far from ready to see Sanders cede the nomination to
Clinton. There were urgent calls for him to fight on to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. And most of the
dozen interviewed by The Washington Post were deeply bitter about news organizations, which they said had called the race
too soon.
“Disgusting. Absolutely horrible to hear,” said Travis Fox, 31, of San Carlos, Calif. “But you know what, I’m more inspired to
support Bernie Sanders. He should go all the way.”
“How can you call this on the eve of the California primary?” asked Jacob Chase, 50, who lives in a boat nearby. He leaned up
against a metal fence and shared his view with others. “The media is trying to suppress the vote and they’re trying to anoint her,
they’re doing an anointment process.”
Jennifer Larson, who lives in Marin, Calif., and works in bio­technology, nodded her head as Chase spoke. She recalled
instantly growing sad as she walked to the event Monday under the shadow of the Golden Gate Bridge and saw the evening
news alert that was buzzing in her pocket.
“My first thought was: Of course this isn’t a coincidence,” she said.
“You know what? I’m not even a big Bernie person. I’m in this for ideology. I don’t think what Bernie wants to do is really
possible to do, but Ithink he should see this through. That he should get that chance,” Larson said. “We have to start
recognizing in this country that everyone has a voice.”
John Gates, 29, who works with children who have autism, was roaming alone following rock musician Dave Matthews’s
acoustic set. He said Sanders should not quit — and that he would never really trust the media again.
“I don’t think this race is over at all,” Gates said. “People have to realize that what we’re seeing on television and in the media is
an illusion and it’s been pushed too far. They can’t decide.”
When asked what he would do this fall if the general ­election campaign came down to Clinton and presumptive Republican
nominee Donald Trump, Gates said he would write­ in Sanders.
“It’ll be a protest vote,” he said.
Some older liberals in the audience, who spoke of Sanders as an icon of sorts for a generation of activists whose politics were
forged in the 1960s, said Monday’s reports were distressing. They sprinkled in advice with their irritation and urged Sanders to
shape the Democratic Party in the coming weeks, win or lose.
“Regardless, he’s got to preserve this movement,” said retired college professor Dennis Evans, 67. “I want to see him take the
lead on the platform, maybe consider being Clinton’s vice president. I really hope he stays involved.”
Once Sanders took the stage for his nearly 50 ­minute speech, he did not directly address the news reports or signal that he was
readying to leave the race. Yet there was a sense of solidarity with his fuming supporters. His tone was defiant and his hand
sliced the air as he issued a series of criticisms of Clinton, describing her as an ally of Wall Street.
There were wistful moments of reflection on the coming end of the primary race, which concludes Tuesday with a primary here
in California and in five other states.
“This campaign has been to me an extraordinary experience,” Sanders said, proudly recalling how his campaign has brought
out people across the country to participate. “It gives me enormous optimism about our future.”
“When we began our campaign, our ideas were considered a fringe campaign and fringe ideas. That is not the case today,”
Sanders thundered as the crowd roared.

Sanders said if he can win in California, that victory would enable him to “go into that convention with enormous momentum.”
Turning toward the Democratic superdelegates who do not formally vote until the convention, Sanders said they should look
hard at polling data and argued that he is best positioned to take on Trump in the fall campaign.
“I should point out to all of the Democratic delegates going to Philadelphia:In every instance, we beat Trump by far larger
margins than does Hillary Clinton,” he said.
“There is no objective observer, none, who will deny that our campaign has the energy and grassroots activism that no other
campaign has,” he continued. “Republicans win when people are demoralized, when they give up on politics. Progressives and
Democrats win when people are animated and they are prepared to fight — and that is what this campaign is about.”

[The Romulan Republic]

And of course maraxus2 is quick to post an article which makes it sound like Sanders supporters are just angry because they lost, gives little to no context of how Clinton allegedly gained the nomination, and describes this as "...an apt emblem of the progressive movement that Sanders has lead over the past year...".

According to NBCnews.com and others, Clinton has it, primary over.

No, the primary is not over. I have little doubt, based on experience, that this statement will provoke a torrent of derision and abuse in place of an actual argument, but here are the facts:

They're saying Clinton won because a number of super delegates chose today, the day before the biggest primary vote after Super Tuesday, to endorse Clinton.

You may say that their is no remotely plausible chance of Bernie winning, and I might even agree, but the fact of the matter is that by the DNC's own rules (and for all the people calling me deluded and stupid and whatever other insults, no one has refuted this fact), superdelegates do not vote until the convention and can change their position until then, and no candidate has won on pledged delegates alone or has even gained a majority of pledged delegates yet. Nor has Sanders left the race.

Theirfor, the primary is not over.

This is a pure, deliberate lie by persons in the media which serves no purpose other than lazy sensationalist reporting, and depressing the voter turnout of the largest primary day after Super Tuesday by telling people their votes don't count.

And do not tell me that this happening now is a coincidence. No, I think its a safe guess that this was carefully timed by said delegates to push Clinton over the top now so they could say the primary's over, so people like you would lap it up and spread their lie, and so that the voters of six states would be told, in effect, "it doesn't matter if you vote, its over, stay home."

This should offend everyone, regardless of what side they're on. I've made no secret of my support for Sanders, but I like to think that even if I did not support him, I would still regard this as tasteless, dishonest, and an insulting attempt to depress voter turnout.

These super delegates took a shit on the voters of six states, including the largest by population in the country.

Moreover, this means what should have been a momentous, glorious historic achievement, the announcement of the first female nominee for a major party, is now tainted by ambiguity and deception and reduced to being used as a political tool.

Clinton, to her credit, is apparently trying to downplay it. While I do not credit her with any integrity, she apparently has enough political sense to know how bad this looks. Could it be that, like the Republicans, she has lost control of her own die-hards? Or is she telling them one thing and saying another in public? Damned if I know.

I swear, if it wasn't someone so repellent and dangerous as Trump on the other side, I'd be very tempted to join Bernie or Bust for this.

This is the last fucking straw. I sincerely hope that it results in a backlash at the polls, that it motivates enraged Sanders supporters to turn out in record numbers while depressing Clinton's turnout because they think they already have it in the bag, and that if Sanders can't win, he at least makes sure Clinton limps across the finish line by a hair's breadth (I'm fairly confident that the Left can still unite as it did in 2008, and that Trump is loathsome enough and Clinton competent enough that she can beat him, so I don't mind if she gets embarrassed tomorrow).

And I would encourage voters to primary the super delegates who pulled this stunt whenever possible.

I do not doubt that those super delegates have the right to do this, and the media has the right to lie about what it means, but I also do not see how anyone with a shred of intelligence and integrity can deny that this is a dishonest insult to the spirit of democracy and to the voters.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Unless Hillary manages to landslide California to an insane extent, it'll go to a contested convention, at which point superdelegates can decide it. Superdelegates have made noise about how they plan to vote. They have not voted. If the primary is already decided I guess we can skip November's election and ask who people plan to vote for between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, then declare that person the winner.

But duplicity is standard operating procedure in politics and journalism. Make it sound like it's 100% for-sure, that no supers are going to go turncoat. There may be enough supers that consider Hillary to be too toxic to the extremely vital independent vote, or that they don't feel comfortable with the perceived risk of indictment. None of these things are terribly likely, of course. But Hillary has not received the necessary number of votes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes.

I don't for one moment think its remotely likely that Sanders will be the nominee (nor should he be unless he somehow takes a majority of pledged delegates/the popular vote, or perhaps if Clinton is indicted). Hell, given how much hatred much of the Democratic establishment seems to have for him and the lengths they will go to do defeat and discredit him, I'd say he's probably got dubious odds even if she is indicted and drops out.

But the lie is offensive nonetheless, and an insult to the electorate. For those of us who believe that truth and democracy hold value, regardless of which side we're on or weather we'll ultimately win, today is not a good day.

[maraxus2]

Unless Hillary manages to landslide California to an insane extent, it'll go to a contested convention, at which point superdelegates can decide it. Superdelegates have made noise about how they plan to vote. They have not voted. If the primary is already decided I guess we can skip November's election and ask who people plan to vote for between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, then declare that person the winner.

But duplicity is standard operating procedure in politics and journalism. Make it sound like it's 100% for-sure, that no supers are going to go turncoat. There may be enough supers that consider Hillary to be too toxic to the extremely vital independent vote, or that they don't feel comfortable with the perceived risk of indictment. None of these things are terribly likely, of course. But Hillary has not received the necessary number of votes.

The Soups have been a part of the primary mix for the last thirty years. Obama won the nomination back in 2008 with Superdelegate support, and nobody made a peep about it back then, apart from Clintonite dead-enders. And everyone basically ignored them, not that they were too numerous in the first place.

You seem to think that a Superdelegate announcing their support doesn't reflect how they'll vote in July. This is puzzling. A superdelegate announcing their support is different from you announcing what you want to have for breakfast; it is not terribly succeptible to change, and there are actual consequences if you do. You seem to think that the Soups will jump ship, while offering literally no reason why they'd do so. Nor, for that matter, any particular reason why they'd vote for a guy who has spent the last year calling them corrupt overlords of a broken system and all the rest.

This sentence sums up my puzzlement with you:

Superdelegates have made noise about how they plan to vote. They have not voted.

The Presidential election is November 8th, but the electoral college won't actually cast their votes until December 14th. But we can say pretty fucking reliably who will be President on November 8th, can't we?

I don't care how "toxic" Clinton is, might be, or will become. The superdelegates in the Democratic Party are not going to betray the first woman to win the Democratic nomination. Stop being so goddamn delusional.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you suggesting that the super delegates are somehow more obligated to stand behind Clinton regardless of circumstances (such as indictment, general election electability, pledged delegate count, or popular vote) simply because she is a woman? That she is somehow more entitled to the nomination on the basis of her gender (with the accompanying implication that anyone who doesn't support her is sexist)?

[The Romulan Republic]

I stand by what I have said, more or less, for some time now:

Its not over until its actually over, officially and beyond doubt, and Sanders has every right to and should remain in until all primary votes have been held (June 14th.). After that, if he does not have a majority in the pledged delegates, I would think that he should begin to wind down his campaign and concede formally before the convention, unless their is good reason to believe that a Clinton indictment is imminent (at present, I don't believe that their is sufficient reason to believe that).

Likewise, I will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee because I believe that we have a moral duty to ourselves, the party, the country, and the world to stop Trump and the Republicans/neo-fascists, but I look forward to primarying her in four years.

[maraxus2]

Are you suggesting that the super delegates are somehow more obligated to stand behind Clinton regardless of circumstances (such as indictment, general election electability, pledged delegate count, or popular vote) simply because she is a woman? That she is somehow more entitled to the nomination on the basis of her gender (with the accompanying implication that anyone who doesn't support her is sexist)?

No, you blithering idiot. I'm suggesting that they're not going to switch their vote from the first woman to win the nomination. Especially not to someone who has, by all accounts save yours, lost the election. They're not going to do it because this is a historic event, and she's going to win.

This is a point so obvious that I didn't think anyone could misinterpret it. I can't tell if you're really dumb or really good at trolling. Either way, good job sweetpea.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I think its a damn shame if they support Clinton simply on account of her gender. And you certainly seem to have no problem with them supporting her more strongly than they otherwise would because she's a woman.

As to saying that Sanders has already lost the election- factually false, I've explained why, you haven't refuted it, and as I recall you have point blank refused to refute it.

It is also therefore technically false to currently say that Clinton is the first woman to win the nomination, because by DNC rules she hasn't yet. I truly hate having to be in the position of pointing out that this milestone has not yet been achieved, and I hate the super delegates and media drones who have taken this milestone and turned it into a partisan deception, but there it is. She most likely will be the first female nominee shortly, of course, and when she is, we can all celebrate the historic achievement then, as we should have, when it is genuine and not a partisan lie.