The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Omega18]

It's largely based on numbers run by a whole lot of papers saying after Super Tuesday II saying that he'd need 58% literally of the remaining pledged delegates. On the 26th he literally got 55% so back of the napkin math might let us knock that up to 59% I don't care to really change it when the number is changing by that small. However tonight he's taking states that give proportional counts with 70% percent, one of them with more than 100 pledged delegates. You want to try to convince me that's not going to knock the 58% requirement down for the ones to follow? On its face?

Try harder.

Ok, it sounds like you're now conceding your low 50s claim was basically wrong. (And also definitely doesn't necessarily apply to actual voter percentage.) Going into tonight Hillary had about 30% of the total Democratic pledged delegates to be awarded in total, while Sanders had about 23%. It should be noted that Obama never had the kind of lead Hillary had going into today in the 2008 primary season to put things into perspective. The catch is Bernie certainly isn't winning all the delegates tonight, and it still more likely than not that the margins will be lower in Hawaii which is the only state Hillary's campaign spent advertising dollars in at least recently.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/5-politic ... ics-221242

(Whatever you think of the decision Hillary decided to concentrate her resources in contesting upcoming primary states instead.)

Now a big enough Sanders margin in Hawaii could change things a bit, but the reality is that you're still looking at a bunch of delegates which are no longer in play after tonight enough even though they helped Sanders close the gap somewhat. Sanders in other words still need to win a whole bunch of the remaining delegates in order to actually end up tied or ahead by the end of the primaries.

Incidentally on the topic of polling for upcoming states it should be noted that the polling for Pennsylvania so far is not favorable for Sanders.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -4249.html

While he still has a month to turns things around and a bunch are undecided, the fact Hillary was over 50% in both of the most recent polls should still be a concern for his campaign.

[Gaidin]

I said absolutely nothing about decisions made by either candidate. All I said was that he might not have turn a -48 in New York into a +20(not that he would be able to), just something less. Unless Wisconsin just goes hilariously hideously wrong for him. RTFP.

[The Romulan Republic]

CNN was just holding a conversation on weather Sanders could win New York (the Sanders campaign seems to think they can contest it).

A lot seems to potentially hinge on weather he can keep tonight's momentum going with Wisconsin.

Certainly, though, he can't afford a massive New York blowout.

[Omega18]

Unless Wisconsin just goes hilariously hideously wrong for him. RTFP.

The question is what exactly you mean by this. The most recent polling did have Hillary up 6% in Wisconsin and its an inherently much more favorable state for her than Washington State was in terms of primaries.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3764.html

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly? In this crazy election (and especially after tonight's Bernie momentum), a 6% lead means pretty much nothing.

[Gaidin]

Unless Wisconsin just goes hilariously hideously wrong for him. RTFP.

The question is what exactly you mean by this. The most recent polling did have Hillary up 6% in Wisconsin and its an inherently much more favorable state for her than Washington State was in terms of primaries.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3764.html

Do I sound like I am caring about a state's politics right now. I'm just number crunching with dirty math. Let me not wait on proper apportionment and 100% reporting and just make a few assumptions so you'll finally understand what I'm saying.

Currently:
Alaska: Bernie 80-20
Washington: Bernie 72-28

Delegates then are from straight proportional assignment assuming no weird caucus games:
Alaska: Bernie 13 - Clinton 3
Washington: Bernie 73 - Clinton 28

Hawaii is still caucusing so, screw them for now.

That boosts Pledged delegate totals for both to:
Bernie: 929+73+13 = 1015
Clinton: 1248+28+3 = 1279

Remaining Pledged Delegates(including Hawaii): 1772
If you're really interested: (25+86+14+247+55+21+95+189+24+83+7+29+55+61+7+60+475+21+126+34+18+20+20)
not bothering with a state list...

Percentage Bernie needs to hit 2026(majority of PLEDGED delegates): (2026-1015)/1772 = 57%

So, down from 58%, but yes, hilariously wrong from my winged number earlier.

[Omega18]

Percentage Bernie needs to hit 2026(majority of PLEDGED delegates): (2026-1015)/1772 = 57%

So, down from 58%, but yes, hilariously wrong from my winged number earlier.

Ok, it definitely sounds like we're now in agreement.

I will confess I didn't actually do all the math before my earlier posts, but I did believe I had enough of a feel for the electoral impact of certain margins of victory to be confident a claim about the low 50s after tonight didn't make sense. (The math does tend to show why its still going to clearly be a challenge for Sanders to make up the gap when you factor in how most of the remaining states differ from Washington State.)

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that with Sanders' momentum from tonight, he might do better in those upcoming states than you might think. I don't know weather it'll be enough to take a lead in pledged delegates, and I fear that if he does, the supers will screw him and the party over and give the victory to Clinton, but Bernie is making a good fight of it.

[Gaidin]

I think that with Sanders' momentum from tonight, he might do better in those upcoming states than you might think. I don't know weather it'll be enough to take a lead in pledged delegates, and I fear that if he does, the supers will screw him and the party over and give the victory to Clinton, but Bernie is making a good fight of it.

Thing is, he might do better. But I'm not sure better is enough. He can start winning states, but he needs that 58%, maybe even more, especially if he wants to have a big enough delegate lead to convince supers to switch side. Because literally their purpose is to break close races regardless of who's winning. A win in the low fifties, which is what's patterned for him in most primaries(not caucuses) is a net loss for him. Let's not get into the potential wrecking ball that New York can be on his requirements.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I did say that New York was potentially the biggest obstacle to him winning.

[Flagg]

It is disgraceful. I don't get why people think what he did was fine and dandy here. He basically walked into someone else's house, plopped themselves down on their couch, put his feet up on the table, and started switching channels while spending decades refusing to come in for a drink because he found associating with you distasteful. And when asked why, he says "well, they get better channels and I don't want to pay my bill".

The reasons he's even running for President to begin with are closely related to the reasons he has never officially joined the Democratic party. The party has been more for donors and special interests for a while now.

So he wants to represent them in the General election, why? He's avoided being a Democrat because he's too good for them until now, when they have more than a chairmanship to offer. The only reason people don't have a problem with him being a fucking whore, is because all politicians at that level are hypocrites and whores and they just support him. So at best Sanders is just another fucking Politician in the 2 Party system. But he's worse IMO, because as you just said, he joined a "party that has been more for donors and special interests for a while now" in order to use those donors and special interests to make him POTUS. That makes him a hypocrite (see above) and a block of enemies in his own party, since now it is his party unless he changes back to an Independent, meaning he essentially would have defrauded the entire Democratic Party to become President. That may work for Frank Underwood, but in the real world it would make him an impeached and removed from office President.

So he'd either be just another hypocritical 2 party political whore like the rest of them, but all of the establishment Democrats will fucking hate him and not a single Wall Street regulatory bill he pushes will get through committee since the establishment Democrats will side with Republicans (assuming they get both Houses of Congress back because he'd need that, too), or a political outcast who wouldn't be able to get a bill passed declaring "America loves it's children" let alone anything for however long it would take for the Democrats and Republicans to finally unite on something and remove Sanders from office. So that won't happen if he's a smart hypocritical political whore. So why vote for Sanders over Hillary Clinton, again?

But that aside, what if Sanders throws a fit at the convention and causes a rift in the party? At least enough of one that it leaves such a bad taste in the mouths of his supporters that some don't vote at all? He could throw the election for Trump should that happen.
And assuming Clinton does step aside... What planet are you on, she's not stepping aside, he'll be on the ticket as VP at best, which I would object to due to his age. It's not the worst idea, but I'd rather have someone younger, who won't be 82/83 or dead by 2024 (assuming 2 terms for both) so you don't run the risk of having to confirm a new VP, or Bowie forbid, a Gerald Ford situation should Clinton die, too. Generally you want a younger VP who 1) likely won't die in office, and 2) will be young enough that they are the same age or younger than the POTUS was when first elected 8 years prior since VP's make good nominees.

So again, why even vote for the guy? And I say this as someone who'd rather have someone other than a hypocritical political whore member of the 2 party system like Clinton. But I don't see him as being any better assuming he could win, and it's possible he could, but harder, I think, than Clinton. The difference is, Clinton would get some shit done, while I don't believe Sanders will both because the establishment won't work well with him and the Republican whackadoos (so, all of them at this point) won't work with him at all because he's a "Socialist Jew".

[Flagg]

Now having an argument with someone that says Bernie's legislative record isn't impressive since he only has a handful of bills that passed. When I mention that he's gotten several amendments onto bills passed through both houses, I was told "that doesn't count."

Will you stop trying to get us to debate people with you as our proxy, please?

[Flagg]

It is disgraceful. I don't get why people think what he did was fine and dandy here. He basically walked into someone else's house, plopped themselves down on their couch, put his feet up on the table, and started switching channels while spending decades refusing to come in for a drink because he found associating with you distasteful. And when asked why, he says "well, they get better channels and I don't want to pay my bill".

The reasons he's even running for President to begin with are closely related to the reasons he has never officially joined the Democratic party. The party has been more for donors and special interests for a while now.

The other thing I want to add to this is, there are plenty of independent voters who are only able to vote in the general election after the Democrats and Republicans chose their candidates for them and we seem to have a mindset that only a two party system work in this country, so cry me a fucking river when Sanders decides to take it the other way.

Yeah, we have a great system, don't we? About half the electorate who actually vote in the general choose the nominees and then pick the winner. But see my reply to Proxy_MJ.

[Gaidin]

I don't know. If the Independents want to pick a candidate, then pick a party that you want to pick a candidate for if you're in a closed/semi-closed state. Primaries aren't small-d democratic by their very design. Walked into Kentucky for years knowing these rules.

[Lord MJ]

. So at best Sanders is just another fucking Politician in the 2 Party system. But he's worse IMO, because as you just said, he joined a "party that has been more for donors and special interests for a while now" in order to use those donors and special interests to make him POTUS. .

No, he isn't using the Democrats corporate donors. He's running as a Democrat because unless you are affiliated with one of the two major parties you are a nobody. His affiliation with the dems does get him money, but not through the DNC corporate donors, but because he has enough exposure to get grassroots donors to donate to him. The average joe is not going to throw money away to support an independent candidate that has little chance of winning.

Furthermore he has stated "I hope my campaign can show Democrats that if you stand for something people can get behind, you don't NEED to be beholden to big donors." Which essentially means, more progressive Democrats emulating Bernie Sanders going forward which is the best way to lessen the impact of money in politics short of an amendment or SCOTUS ruling to fix the problem.

[Flagg]

. So at best Sanders is just another fucking Politician in the 2 Party system. But he's worse IMO, because as you just said, he joined a "party that has been more for donors and special interests for a while now" in order to use those donors and special interests to make him POTUS. .

No, he isn't using the Democrats corporate donors. He's running as a Democrat because unless you are affiliated with one of the two major parties you are a nobody. His affiliation with the dems does get him money, but not through the DNC corporate donors, but because he has enough exposure to get grassroots donors to donate to him. The average joe is not going to throw money away to support an independent candidate that has little chance of winning.

Furthermore he has stated "I hope my campaign can show Democrats that if you stand for something people can get behind, you don't NEED to be beholden to big donors." Which essentially means, more progressive Democrats emulating Bernie Sanders going forward which is the best way to lessen the impact of money in politics short of an amendment or SCOTUS ruling to fix the problem.

Who do you think will be giving him money if he's nominated and goes to the general election as the Denocratic Candidate, dumbass? The big party donors! Christ.

[Flagg]

I don't know. If the Independents want to pick a candidate, then pick a party that you want to pick a candidate for if you're in a closed/semi-closed state. Primaries aren't small-d democratic by their very design. Walked into Kentucky for years knowing these rules.

That's what I did in FL. Here in WA it's a caucus state. If it were a primary vote Sanders wouldn't have performed as well because more minorities would have participated as we do mail-in ballots because we aren't a regressive shithole. As it is I'm surprised anyone showed up to join each others circle jerk the day before Easter.

[Lord MJ]

Who do you think will be giving him money if he's nominated and goes to the general election as the Denocratic Candidate, dumbass? The big party donors! Christ.

Its TBD whether Bernie will accept corporate money if he manages to get the nomination ( I doubt it). Also whether he will accept money directly from the DNC (more likely).

But general election funding is not the reason he was talking about "exposure and money." It's specifically about getting him to where he is now. Nobody would even be talking about him now if he ran as an independent. His candidacy would not even be relevant until the general election as an independent, and if he did make a splash he would likely just hand the election to the GOP.

This really should be a no brainer.

[Gaidin]

That's what I did in FL. Here in WA it's a caucus state. If it were a primary vote Sanders wouldn't have performed as well because more minorities would have participated as we do mail-in ballots because we aren't a regressive shithole. As it is I'm surprised anyone showed up to join each others circle jerk the day before Easter.

Well it's funny. The Open/Closed nature last I checked was state law even though the parties could change from Primary to Caucus on the drop of a dime. Ran Paul did some fun stuff so he could Primary for both President and Senate this year in Kentucky. It was amusing. Democrats are still running a standard Primary alongside that Republican Caucus though. I think if someone can't make themselves aware of these rules when they register to vote it's on them. Or, if their principles about the parties are so righteous that they're going to flat out register as Independent and not Undeclared and get into a Semi-closed vote, well they can stop trying to have their cake and eat it too.

They wanted to be independent in a closed state, so let them. They can carry it with pride. They can carry the consequences too.

[The Romulan Republic]

Can't find any results for Hawaii.

I'm assuming, based on early reports, that Sanders won or is winning.

I can only wonder, therefore, if the Clintonites don't want to cover the fact that Sanders just won an overwhelmingly non-white state.

Last I checked, fucking CNN was playing Easter religious programming.

Edit: Actually, correction. I've seen one post claiming Sanders victory from the page "Occupy Democrats" on Facebook. That's it. Nothing on the front page of Google News that I could see. Nothing on CNN.

[Gaidin]

It's 2am. Even 24 hour news stations are running tv shows and Clinton's been downplaying this day all week regardless of minority make-up of the states. They've known what the polling has looked like for days if not weeks for their inner machine. The best you're hoping is a website auto-update. Legitimately so.

[The Romulan Republic]

You'd think they could handle a late night once in a while when their's actual important breaking news.

Ah well, I suppose I'll hear in the morning. Bugger.

[Dominus Atheos]

Hawaii Democratic Party Chair Stephanie Ohigashi says results likely not released before 7-8 pm HST.

https://twitter.com/chadblairCB/status/ ... 3055856642

It is now 8:20pm HST, so the results are only a little late so far.

[Dominus Atheos]

More from twitter:

Update: #HIcaucus results will not be released until after 9pm HST

https://twitter.com/CivilBeat/status/713969023948599296

[applejack]

Sanders wins Hawaii with 71% of vote with 88 percent of precincts reporting.

Hawaii News Now

With big turnout, Sanders wins Hawaii Democratic presidential poll

Published: Thursday, March 24th 2016, 6:10 pm HST
Updated: Saturday, March 26th 2016, 10:28 pm HST

By HNN Staff

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders clinched a decisive victory in Hawaii's Democratic presidential poll Saturday, on a day with turnout that rivaled numbers seen in 2008 when Hawaii-born Barack Obama made his first bid for the White House.

With 88 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders garnered 71 percent of the vote, Democratic Party of Hawaii officials announced Saturday night. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got 29 percent of the vote.

The win gave Sanders a clean sweep for Saturday's Democratic caucuses — a goal the Sanders campaign had previously set in hopes of catching up to his Democratic rival. By mid-day Hawaii time, Sanders had been declared the winner in both Alaska and Washington state.

Though the wins are expected to reinvigorate Sanders' campaign, political onlookers are quick to point out that Clinton still holds a considerable delegate lead.

The partial Hawaii results released Saturday night include 32,096 ballots that were cast statewide. Democratic party officials said the 12 percent of precincts that were still being tabulated are on Oahu.

'Chaos'

Polls in the Democratic vote opened at 1 p.m., but long lines were reported at a number of precincts by 11 a.m.

As the day wore on, Democrats reported hours-long waits and standing-room only crowds at voting locations around the islands. One Twitter user said at least 100 people were gathered in Manoa Valley to vote.

The big crowds, overwhelmed volunteers — and many first-time caucus voters — led to problems at polling places statewide.

Several social media users said their precincts ran out of ballots. Hawaii News Now also received reports of voters arriving at their precincts about 3 p.m. to find they had already closed. (Voting began at 1 p.m., but there was no definitive time given for when polling places would close.)

Voter Koa Ulu said he and about a dozen other people were turned away from the precinct at Nanakuli High School about 3:30 p.m. by party volunteers who said it was closed.

"The Democratic Party in Hawaii did a poor job in reaching out to Hawaii and informing the population," he said, in a Facebook message to Hawaii News Now.

Charlene Hosenfeld, of Kailua, called the voting at Kailua Intermediate School "chaos."

"There were throngs of people, no direction, no one seemed to be in charge, ballots were handed out randomly," Hosenfeld said, in an email to Hawaii News Now. "This was not democracy at work. It was chaos and a farce."

Democratic Party of Hawaii Chairwoman Stefanie Ohigashi, said she is aware of some of the voting problems.

"I've been informed that when they got there it was closed, and that could happen at smaller precincts," Ohigashi said. "These are members of the party. They know what they're doing. They've come to vote."

Democratic party officials said they expect Saturday's turnout to meet or top the 37,000 voters who participated in the 2008 Democratic caucus in Hawaii.

"We're expecting to hit those numbers, if not more," said Ethann Oki, Democratic Party of Hawaii communication specialist, before voting started.

Spotlight on Hawaii

Hawaii's caucus is usually not the subject of national attention. But Saturday's voting in the islands garnered attention from the candidates and the national media.

On Friday, the candidates and their supporters made last-minute pitches to Hawaii Democrats; both camps also ran political TV ads in the Hawaii market.

Clinton and Sanders were competing for 34 delegates in Hawaii's presidential preference poll, although only 25 will be decided by the voters. The other nine are determined by state party leaders, or super delegates, and most of them are backing the former secretary of state. Hawaii isn't a winner-take-all state.

Only Democrats were allowed to participate in Saturday's vote. But those who weren't registered to vote or signed up for the party could do so at precincts before casting a ballot.

At both campaigns earlier in the week, volunteers were busy making calls to recruit voters and remind people to turn out to vote.

Neither Clinton nor Sanders made the trip to Hawaii this campaign season, but the senator's wife, Jane Sanders, did tour Oahu and Maui recently. And both candidates conducted phone interviews with Hawaii News Now on Friday.

Sanders campaign officials say Hawaii voters have often felt marginalized in presidential races, but this year would be different.

"There's also a lot of important issues that impact the people of Hawaii, including income inequality, including money in politics, including the benefits for veterans and seniors, and affordable education," said Reed Millar, the Hawaii state director for the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Hawaii Republicans held their caucus March 8. Front-runner Donald Trump won handily, walking away with 11 of Hawaii's 19 GOP delegates. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz got seven, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio got one.