The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[Gaidin]

Gaiden- Drumpf and Sanders overlap only in minor or very general respects (like they are both "anti-establishment"). In principles, character, and policy, they are light years apart. While you may dismiss it as "hyperventilating", I have no doubt I could find more commonality between Drumpf and Hitler, policy and character-wise, in all seriousness, than between him and Sanders.

I'll take that as hilarious agreement to my point. In spite of your ranting.

[The Romulan Republic]

If your point is that you can theoretically find overlap between Sanders and Drumpf, you are correct. I could find overlap between you and the leader of ISIS too. You're both human, you're both male, you're both capable of speech...

If you think, as you appear to, that that overlap is in any way meaningful, or a satisfactory explanation for Sanders supporters switching to Drumpf, you're wrong, and I certainly did not, do not, and will not agree.

And I will take your dismissal of my argument as "ranting", without posting a counterargument, as evidence that you have no real counterargument and thus have no recourse but ad hominems and insults.

Concession accepted.

Edit: I get that I may seem over the top in my anger, I really do. But here's the thing- Drumpf's policy represent a regression for America in pretty much all the worst ways, and he is further normalizing political violence and bigotry in America. That is a fact. Not opinion. Does that mean he's going to cart people off to death camps? No. I don't claim to know the future. But I do know that he is dangerous, and despicable, and when I see people willing to support him for the pettiest of reasons, and pretend its something other than what it is, it pisses me off.

Even if Drumpf was no worse a President than George W. Bush... how many people are poor or dead today because of George W. Bush's Presidency?

The Presidency is too important for voting based on spite or curiosity to be anything less than horribly irresponsible at best.

[Gaidin]

Yea thanks. I just find your bonkers off the wall bs because someone posted the wrong thing(to you) hilarious. Go be yourself BernieBro.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yea thanks. I just find your bonkers off the wall bs because someone posted the wrong thing(to you) hilarious. Go be yourself BernieBro.

Ah, yes. "BernieBro."

Since I am aware that that term has connotations of sexism, and supporting Sanders instead of Clinton because of sexism, you will justify you implication that my position is motivated by sexism or you will offer a retraction and apology.

Or I will regard this as a lie and ad hominem and respond accordingly.

You have posted virtually zero argument of any substance to defend your position. Virtually your entire response has been mockery and personal insults. And least I bothered to post reasons for why I feel the way I do, you snivelling Clinton lickspittle.

[Gaidin]

Yea thanks. I just find your bonkers off the wall bs because someone posted the wrong thing(to you) hilarious. Go be yourself BernieBro.

Ah, yes. "BernieBro."

Since I am aware that that term has connotations of sexism, and supporting Sanders instead of Clinton because of sexism, you will justify you implication that my position is motivated by sexism or you will offer a retraction and apology.

Or I will regard this as a lie and ad hominem and respond accordingly.

You have posted virtually zero argument of any substance to defend your position. Virtually your entire response has been mockery and personal insults. And least I bothered to post reasons for why I feel the way I do, you snivelling Clinton lickspittle.

Nah. I never had any intention at all of calling you that. You want to report me report me. I've got no support for Clinton. That's for sure. But it'll be damn well publicly known that I didn't call you a BernieBro until you went batshit crazy on someone when he pondered from switching from Bernie to Trump. BernieBro.

[The Romulan Republic]

I will apologize for calling you a snivelling Clinton lickspittle if I was incorrect in the assumption that you support Clinton. Though using the BernieBro mere against me falsely is certainly playing into her narrative.

"BernieBro" is an accusation which carries connotations of sexism. It implies that my support for Sanders is motivated by the fact that he is a man, and Clinton is a woman. Something which you have made no real effort to back up, or correct.

While I will not assert that I am completely free of prejudice, I have reasons for my position that are entirely to do with policy and character, not gender. As such, I find that term applied to myself misleading bordering on defamatory.

Did I overreact to the Drumpf supporter? Perhaps. But I am bloody tired of seeing some Sanders supporters talk about backing that fascist shit, demonstrating that they either do not understand what Sanders represents, do not care, or both. Especially because I know that they are hurting Sanders' campaign by association, and as a Sanders supporter their attitudes reflect negatively on me (as unfair as that is). And on that note, I also know that if Drumpf wins, I as an American will be blamed, condemned, and hated for everything he does, including by people on this forum, simply because I am American, just as people will look down on me as a Sanders supporter because other Sanders supporters are jackasses.

So yeah, it gets to me. Sue me.

[Patroklos]

I said that voting for him was analogous to joining the KKK/Neo-Nazis (not committing actual violent acts, but just joining them), and I stand by that, because a lot of his supporters are KKK and Neo-Nazis.

Really dude? Its BS rhetoric like this that makes you no better than what you imagine Trumpkins are. There are no brown shirts, red guards or revolutionary whatevers in this race whether we are talking about supporters of Sanders, Trump or anyone in between. Even hinting at that is you just being a self serving dick. Its almost like you WISH you lived in circumstances were such groups existed. Grow up.

[Gaidin]

Did I overreact to the Drumpf supporter? Perhaps. But I am bloody tired of seeing some Sanders supporters talk about backing that fascist shit, demonstrating that they either do not understand what Sanders represents, do not care, or both. Especially because I know that they are hurting Sanders' campaign by association, and as a Sanders supporter their attitudes reflect negatively on me (as unfair as that is). And on that note, I also know that if Drumpf wins, I as an American will be blamed, condemned, and hated for everything he does, including by people on this forum, simply because I am American, just as people will look down on me as a Sanders supporter because other Sanders supporters are jackasses.

So yeah, it gets to me. Sue me.

Oh believe me. I am to. I mean, you're talking to someone who is more interested in primaries for the math than the principles. I wait for the general election so I know what the real messages are and I don't even know who I will vote for yet. I'd like to think someone will steal shit from Trump in a floor fight but I'm starting to lose faith after tonight when he looks to be winning every god damned state and Cruz can't even get a morale victory. At lease Kasich got one winner take all. Morale.

But vote. It's his. Who the fuck am I. I have my reasons to believe what I'd believe. But it's his. We've fought fucking god damn wars over this shit(forgive drama please). Why should I scream at him?

Whatever.

[The Romulan Republic]

I said that voting for him was analogous to joining the KKK/Neo-Nazis (not committing actual violent acts, but just joining them), and I stand by that, because a lot of his supporters are KKK and Neo-Nazis.

Really dude? Its BS rhetoric like this that makes you no better than what you imagine Trumpkins are.

Am I advocating or engaging in violence, using Nazi salutes, or supporting xenophobic policy?

No?

Then I'm better than them. That's not bragging. Better than them is a pretty damn low bar.

There are no brown shirts, red guards or revolutionary whatevers in this race whether we are talking about supporters of Sanders, Trump or anyone in between. Even hinting at that is you just being a self serving dick. Its almost like you WISH you lived in circumstances were such groups existed. Grow up.

Fuck off.

I don't wish for it.

I fear it.

Are we at Nazi Germany yet? Of course not. But I think consciously moving closer, even a little closer, to that is a really fucking bad idea.

Even a moderately bad President (W.) managed to wreck the global economy, throw much of the world into political chaos, and get hundreds of thousands killed. Hell, a considerable portion of the blame for IS, Syria, and the refugee crisis goes to him. And I know from experience that their are people who would criticize me for saying "a considerable portion of the blame" instead of "all of the blame". The world is a less free and less safe place, and innumerable lives were destroyed, by his Presidency.

Even if Drumpf is no worse than that (which in my opinion is a very optimistic assessment, because W. never acted this crazy, never to my knowledge had regular mob violence at his events, and had more political experience), that's reason enough to oppose him ferociously.

[Soontir C'boath]

Yes, well petty or not. It is my vote at the end of the day. Do keep in mind I did say "I MAY vote for Trump", not that I will and that the general election is about eight months away. I may very well have a different position on what I want to do by then. Heck, my normal modus operandi at the polls is to write in names with porn stars, railroad tycoons, dictators (I live in a Filipino community so I added one from their country last year), etc or vote for a random third party like the Rent Is Too Damn High.

So in the end, I usually take elections seriously and as a joke at the same time.

[The Romulan Republic]

Did I overreact to the Drumpf supporter? Perhaps. But I am bloody tired of seeing some Sanders supporters talk about backing that fascist shit, demonstrating that they either do not understand what Sanders represents, do not care, or both. Especially because I know that they are hurting Sanders' campaign by association, and as a Sanders supporter their attitudes reflect negatively on me (as unfair as that is). And on that note, I also know that if Drumpf wins, I as an American will be blamed, condemned, and hated for everything he does, including by people on this forum, simply because I am American, just as people will look down on me as a Sanders supporter because other Sanders supporters are jackasses.

So yeah, it gets to me. Sue me.

Oh believe me. I am to. I mean, you're talking to someone who is more interested in primaries for the math than the principles. I wait for the general election so I know what the real messages are and I don't even know who I will vote for yet. I'd like to think someone will steal shit from Trump in a floor fight but I'm starting to lose faith after tonight when he looks to be winning every god damned state and Cruz can't even get a morale victory. At lease Kasich got one winner take all. Morale.

But vote. It's his. Who the fuck am I. I have my reasons to believe what I'd believe. But it's his. We've fought fucking god damn wars over this shit(forgive drama please). Why should I scream at him?

Whatever.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here.

However, of course every single voter has the right to vote as they please. That's about as close to sacred as anything for me.

But that doesn't mean I can't offer my opinion, in whatever terms I please within the limits of the law, on why supporting certain candidates is a very, very bad idea. And while perhaps their are advantages to a calmer and more polite argument, I am not inclined to be polite to anyone who thinks Drumpf would be a remotely acceptable President.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, almost all the vote in for Illinois and Missouri last I checked CNN (over 90% in both, I believe).

Clinton up slightly in Illinois. Sanders up by a hair in Missouri. The delegates for both will be effectively split.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ugg, Illinois called for Clinton.

I missed Agents of SHIELD for this?

Still, for all that CNN is going on about what a great night it is for her... its a two point win. They'll basically split the delegates. Its hardly a resounding win. More like just barely holding on.

The problem is that when you have a big lead from earlier, all you have to do is just barely hold on if you can do it long enough.

[Gaidin]

She just took the lead in a key district in Missouri and it looks like the only place left to count might go to her as well.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Well fuck. Good night for Trump, bad night for American Democracy. At least Ohio went to Kasich. I've also been told Rubio dropped out after losing Florida.

Ohio, NC, and Florida for Clinton, apparently.

Probably Illinois too the way things are going, from what I've seen on CNN. Sanders slightly up in Missouri.

I'm sure the Clinton crowd will be gloating, going on about how Clinton has won and Sanders needs to drop out. But their are a few points to counter that.

He really does need to drop out. The high point of Sanders' campaign was Michigan. However, Michigan has clearly turned out to be a fluke that Sanders failed to replicate tonight. Clinton only needs to win something like 53% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination without relying on the superdelegates to help her. Sanders, on the other hand, needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates. He's only managed such a margin of victory in Vermont, (and Kansas, if you round up.) The Democratic nominating contest is all over but the crying. The only person who benefits from Bernie Sanders staying in the race at this point is Donald Trump.

3. Sanders has a string of promising states coming up, provided his supporters don't decide to rally behind her inevitable majesty.

And that's the thing. If Sanders had managed to pull off an upset in Ohio, and won by more than the hairs on his head in Missouri (and he might not win Missouri ... there's 1% of the vote left to count, and Sanders' lead has dropped to 0.4% evaporated entirely ... they could end the night effectively tied with Clinton making a clean sweep of all the night's primaries) he could've claimed that he was a viable candidate and would've gained the momentum needed to keep would-be Sanders supporters from staying home, and last-minute deciders from jumping on the Clinton bandwagon. But tonight, Sanders effectively won nothing, and was flogged like the proverbial red-headed step-child in the all-important general-election "battleground" states. Arguably his failure to do better tonight is a sign that his supporters are starting to show their fatigue and are increasingly starting to not show up in the numbers needed to counter-balance Clinton's broader coalition of voters.

Yeah, tonight sucks and Clinton is the likely winner (if you call picking a weak nominee who may go down in flames to Trump winning). But I hate the inevitability narrative that's been pushed for so long.

Hey, I hate gravity; but that doesn't change the fact that if I step off a cliff, I'll die from a gravity-induced fall. The trends behind Sanders' support were all very clear from the beginning, and they never really changed. His appeal has always been limited to a small segment of the Democratic base that, traditionally, has problems with turnout. That never changed, and he's consistently failed to bring them out in greater numbers than they usually turn out for primaries. Whereas we saw Clinton firming up her support among a broad selection of voting populations who all actually go out and vote. You may hate the inevitability narrative, but there wasn't really any other narrative that was credible.

[Gaidin]

Hillary sweeps.

[The Romulan Republic]

Still haven't called Missouri last I saw, but she could get five for five (though two of those will be really close with the delegates basically split and NC was narrower than a lot of past Southern wins).

Its a good night for Clinton.

But what I'm wondering is what will happening the western and New England states that remain. Will their be a sense of momentum and inevitability that depresses Sanders' vote and gets people to rally behind Clinton, or will Sanders still be pulling in a lot of those states? Because it seems to me that the main Clinton strongholds (the South and Superdelegates) have largely spoken now (though of course the Superdelegates could switch positions), and that the geography of the race could enable a surprise come back.

[The Romulan Republic]

He really does need to drop out. The high point of Sanders' campaign was Michigan. However, Michigan has clearly turned out to be a fluke that Sanders failed to replicate tonight. Clinton only needs to win something like 53% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination without relying on the superdelegates to help her. Sanders, on the other hand, needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates. He's only managed such a margin of victory in Vermont, (and Kansas, if you round up.) The Democratic nominating contest is all over but the crying. The only person who benefits from Bernie Sanders staying in the race at this point is Donald Trump.

Interestingly, some of the folks on CNN just now seemed to be disagreeing with that.

I've seen it argued either way, weather continuing the primary would help Drumpf. But I think trying to say that Sanders is somehow aiding Drumpf if he doesn't concede to Clinton is a bit much. Its basically trying to shame him into handing her the nomination when nearly half the states (including some massive ones) still haven't voted, and/or put the blame on him if Drumpf wins.

Also, your math seems to be presuming that super delegates won't switch sides. Note that even the DNC, as I recall, says that super delegates shouldn't be counted in the tally of delegates at this point.

And that's the thing. If Sanders had managed to pull off an upset in Ohio, and won by more than the hairs on his head in Missouri (and he might not win Missouri ... there's 1% of the vote left to count, and Sanders' lead has dropped to 0.4% evaporated entirely ... they could end the night effectively tied with Clinton making a clean sweep of all the night's primaries) he could've claimed that he was a viable candidate and would've gained the momentum needed to keep would-be Sanders supporters from staying home, and last-minute deciders from jumping on the Clinton bandwagon. But tonight, Sanders effectively won nothing, and was flogged like the proverbial red-headed step-child in the all-important general-election "battleground" states. Arguably his failure to do better tonight is a sign that his supporters are starting to show their fatigue and are increasingly starting to not show up in the numbers needed to counter-balance Clinton's broader coalition of voters.

Weather its fatigue or just that Sanders was never very popular in these states to begin with (and remember, some polls gave Clinton much bigger leads in Illinois and Ohio, at least) will be determined by weather he wins in states in more favourable regions to come.

Hey, I hate gravity; but that doesn't change the fact that if I step off a cliff, I'll die from a gravity-induced fall. The trends behind Sanders' support were all very clear from the beginning, and they never really changed. His appeal has always been limited to a small segment of the Democratic base that, traditionally, has problems with turnout. That never changed, and he's consistently failed to bring them out in greater numbers than they usually turn out for primaries. Whereas we saw Clinton firming up her support among a broad selection of voting populations who all actually go out and vote. You may hate the inevitability narrative, but there wasn't really any other narrative that was credible.

It is one thing to say Clinton's win is inevitable now. Its still premature, and mathematically technically false, but at least has a veneer of plausibility.

To say that their was never any credibility to anyone other than Clinton winning is ridiculous, and makes your bias obvious and me disinclined to take you seriously.

[The Romulan Republic]

In any case, their are two very good reasons for Sanders to stay in:

1. It sets him up as the obvious successor if the indictment really does happen.

2. It builds more influence for his movement, and increases the likelihood that the DNC and Clinton will actually honour much of what his supporters want, rather than Clinton making a hard swing to the Right come the general election.

[Gaidin]

Still haven't called Missouri last I saw, but she could get five for five (though two of those will be really close with the delegates basically split and NC was narrower than a lot of past Southern wins).

Missouri seems to be based on whether they do a recount. All precincts are reporting 100% with Clinton leading by 1k. So it depends on whether Bernie wants to lead by 2 or tie. Proverbially. Depending on if they have rules for districts.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, in my opinion, any race that close should get a recount regardless of who's in the lead.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

He really does need to drop out. The high point of Sanders' campaign was Michigan. However, Michigan has clearly turned out to be a fluke that Sanders failed to replicate tonight. Clinton only needs to win something like 53% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination without relying on the superdelegates to help her. Sanders, on the other hand, needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates. He's only managed such a margin of victory in Vermont, (and Kansas, if you round up.) The Democratic nominating contest is all over but the crying. The only person who benefits from Bernie Sanders staying in the race at this point is Donald Trump.

Interestingly, some of the folks on CNN just now seemed to be disagreeing with that.

I've seen it argued either way, weather continuing the primary would help Drumpf. But I think trying to say that Sanders is somehow aiding Drumpf if he doesn't concede to Clinton is a bit much. Its basically trying to shame him into handing her the nomination when nearly half the states (including some massive ones) still haven't voted, and/or put the blame on him if Drumpf wins.

Also, your math seems to be presuming that super delegates won't switch sides. Note that even the DNC, as I recall, says that super delegates shouldn't be counted in the tally of delegates at this point.

Short of Clinton choking to death on a pretzel, the superdelegates aren't switching. Hillary Clinton now has amassed a far greater lead in general delegates than Obama ever did in 2008. There's no reason for the superdelegates to switch; and because Bernie Sanders is, technically, not really a Democrat (he's an independent who caucuses with them, and thus, exists outside of the party machine,) they have even less reason to do so. Unless, of course, they have to because of the aforementioned pretzel.

Worse, if we throw in the superdelegates, the math gets even worse for Sanders. Throw in the superdelegates, and Clinton only needs 34% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. Only in Vermont and Kansas did Clinton ever do that poorly. In every other state, even the ones that Sanders won, Clinton beat that target handily.

Hey, I hate gravity; but that doesn't change the fact that if I step off a cliff, I'll die from a gravity-induced fall. The trends behind Sanders' support were all very clear from the beginning, and they never really changed. His appeal has always been limited to a small segment of the Democratic base that, traditionally, has problems with turnout. That never changed, and he's consistently failed to bring them out in greater numbers than they usually turn out for primaries. Whereas we saw Clinton firming up her support among a broad selection of voting populations who all actually go out and vote. You may hate the inevitability narrative, but there wasn't really any other narrative that was credible.

It is one thing to say Clinton's win is inevitable now. Its still premature, and mathematically technically false, but at least has a veneer of plausibility.

To say that their was never any credibility to anyone other than Clinton winning is ridiculous, and makes your bias obvious and me disinclined to take you seriously.

Right back at ya. I don't really like the Clinton-bot, and would be sorely tempted to vote Jill Stein in the general election. However, I like all of the Republicans even less. While the earliest primaries made for exciting news, the numbers were never really on Sanders' side, and that put an early damper on what enthusiasm I felt for his campaign.

[The Romulan Republic]

The super delegates would have excellent reason to switch if a) Sanders took the lead in pledged delegates/popular vote, or b) Clinton has a really big scandal. Like indictment big.

Weather they would, though, may be another matter. I have a feeling a lot of them would likely sink the party before they'd abandon her.

As to Clinton... I loath her, I have not yet given up on Sanders, but if she gets the nomination, I'll probably grudgingly, and with a great deal of self-loathing, vote for her. Because like I said before, at that point its not about what I want. Its about keeping the sinking ship afloat for four or eight more years. Better a corrupt candidate than a lunatic.

[The Romulan Republic]

I actually feel ill thinking about tonight's result.

While it is possible for Sanders to win, it became a lot less likely. And I have zero confidence in Clinton's ability to best Drumpf.

I am honestly not sure I have seen a more disappointing and concerning result since Bush 2000.

It is a sad state of affairs when I am placing most of my hopes for American politics in the near term on the GOP self-destructing via brokered convention and a Drumpf independent run.

Edit: And yet, how many times have people suggested that Sanders was finished? If this election has been one thing, it is unpredictable.

[Gandalf]

Well, it originated with John Oliver, who as I recall argued that a lot of Drumpf's appeal came from his brand name. Hence replacing Trump with his ancestral name, Drumpf.

Its petty, perhaps, but I have no desire to show the man any respect or give him any dignity.

You show 'em tough guy! Do you have a funny name for Clinton lined up?