The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Raw Shark]

What's even more fun to point out is the fact that somehow that naturalization rule magically doesn't apply to the "secret Kenyan" Obama

Yeah, I've always taken the subtext of the Birther movement to be, "The rules don't count here! This is different! HE'S BLACK! BLACK, I SAY! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?"

[Iroscato]

What's even more fun to point out is the fact that somehow that naturalization rule magically doesn't apply to the "secret Kenyan" Obama

You can never be too careful when dealing with a gay muslim transexual-marrying Antichrist, you know.

EDIT: forgot communist. I'm *such* a klutz!

[Khaat]

Oh, hey: does "natural born" maybe mean those delivered by cesarean can't be POTUS?
Were the Founding Fathers big fans of "the Scottish Play" (Macbeth)?

[Dominus Atheos]

Hm.

I'm not saying this to be hostile, but I've never heard that before. Can you document it?

For example, the Expatriation Act of 1907 where Congress specified that American women automatically lose their citizenship if they marry a foreigner. Or "An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization 1790", which said "[T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States", the status of the mother is never mentioned.

The argument is that Congress never even considered women when talking about citizenship and children until the 20th century because it would have been unthinkable to consider anything besides the status of the father. Women were just property, they didn't have "rights" and couldn't confer "rights", only men.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, Wisconsin today.

I'm fairly confident in predicting a Bernie win. The question is the margin of victory. Will it be close, or the kind of win we saw last time around with Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska?

Also, Clinton and Sanders have agreed to another debate. It'll take place in Brooklyn on April 14th.

[Terralthra]

All polling indicates a narrow win for Sen. Sanders, but unlike talking media heads, I understand that doesn't particularly matter. Within 5% or so, the delegate balance is effectively unchanged, regardless of who is in the lead.

[The Romulan Republic]

It matters a little in terms of PR/momentum. "I won this state" sounds better than "I narrowly lost but split the delegates".

Also, in a close race, every single delegate is important.

Every single delegate is especially important when you're in Bernie's position, behind and trying to close the gap.

[Simon_Jester]

Thanks for clearing that up, DA.

[Mr Bean]

With 25% reporting Bernie Sanders is a lock to win Wisconsin either at the required 58% of the vote plus or minus four percent. He's flopping between 55%-62% at the moment so who knows exactly where it will end up at the 100% reporting mark.

Also Ted Cruz won, and might be winning by enough to make Wisconsin a winner take all state for Ted Cruz. As his win was expected it's not that much in the way of news... him making the state winner take all by winning all districts is news however as he had a one in three chance per 538 of pulling that off but again that bit is to early to call.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thanks for clearing that up, DA.

Was that directed at me?

If so, what precisely is your point?

Anyway, looks to be about a ten point win for the Bern in Wisconsin. Not great, not bad. He's doing what he needs to do to keep chipping away at the gap and keep his momentum going before New York.

[Dominus Atheos]

Obviously he has thanking David Attenborough after he watched the Life series on BBC.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bernie seems to be climbing up on CNN. 12 point lead or higher last I checked, I believe.

[Gandalf]

It looks as though Sanders will get 10-15 more delegates than Clinton. If he's to even think of winning this, the NY primary needs to be some sort of landslide.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't be ridiculous.

Sanders winning New York by anything would be a shock, seriously undermining Clinton's credibility as a candidate. And considering New York should have been one of her strongest states, it is likely that if he wins their, their are a shit load of states after that where he will do better. Like, say, California, which vastly outweighs even New York's delegate count.

I am so fucking tired of people portraying Sanders wins as losses.

Edit: I also think its very telling that people in the "Clinton is inevitable" crowd are already trying to come up with a way to spin a New York Sanders victory as not mattering, especially when if Clinton winning were so inevitable, a loss in New York of all places should be almost beyond comprehension.

[Gandalf]

There's some ~2000 delegates left with a grand total of 2383 needed for the win. Clinton is ~600 (~1100 w/o superdelegates) away from the nomination. Sanders is ~1350 away.

So of the remaining candidates, Clinton only needs one in three, Sanders needs more than two to cross the magic line. Assuming the superdelegates aren't moving, isn't winning more than 1/3 of delegates is a win for her?

[The Romulan Republic]

Assuming the super delegates don't shift, and are willing to risk torpedoing the party in the general election by going against the popular vote/pledged delegates if Sanders takes the lead their.

Also, what is your source for 1350 away for Sanders?

Even CNN puts Bernie at about 1,090. Or about 60 delegates closer than you have him.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

It looks as though Sanders will get 10-15 more delegates than Clinton. If he's to even think of winning this, the NY primary needs to be some sort of landslide.

Indeed. To be fair, Sanders will probably come away with about 66% of Wisconsin's delegates, thanks to their convoluted delegate-apportioning rules. So tonight is a genuine victory for him, since it gets him closer. He'll probably win a significant portion of Wyoming's 14 delegates on Saturday, since Wyoming is a western caucus state, and they've been breaking for Sanders by ridiculous margins. However, he needs to win New York with what, 57-58% of the vote in order to continue to cut Clinton's delegate lead at a fast enough pace to get the majority of pledged delegates by the convention.

Since polling shows that Clinton is likely to win New York with at least 53% of the vote, this is unlikely. Furthermore the next big chunk of states to vote on the 26th is looking very favorable for Clinton. The only state voting on the 26th that shows any promise of being a Sanders pickup is Rhode Island (what few polls there are show either Clinton or Sanders winning by about 8 points.) The big prize on the 26th, Pennsylvania, looks to be a lock for Clinton, as she enjoys nearly a 30 point lead, and the undecided voters have been breaking evenly for her and Sanders as time goes on.

There's a dearth of information about the states voting in May, but none of them are really big prizes. In June, the biggest prize is California, and so far it's not looking like it's going to be a Sanders upset. Even if he does win it, unless he spends the rest of this month and May racking up an unbroken string of solid victories, it won't matter.

So, tl;dr, the story of the Democratic nomination remains unchanged ... Sanders has enough support to continue to hound Clinton all the way to the convention, but he doesn't have enough to actually stop her from getting the nomination on the first try. Pretty much the same story that's been told about this Democratic primary season since late February.

Fortunately, though, it doesn't really look like it's going to be that urgent for Democrats to hurry up and get behind Clinton. Cruz's solid thrashing of Trump tonight basically guarantees a GOP convention floor-fight, likely to produce a compromise candidate hated by the Republican base, since none of them will have had a real hand in choosing him. And, bad news for the GOP compromise candidate, it is possible that they'll have to fend off a third-party challenge from Trump. Clinton might not even have to worry that much about how she'll appeal to the young, disaffected, voters who supported Sanders in the primaries since a rightward jog towards "center" is likely to net her more votes.

Assuming the super delegates don't shift, and are willing to risk torpedoing the party in the general election by going against the popular vote/pledged delegates if Sanders takes the lead their.

Also, what is your source for 1350 away for Sanders?

Even CNN puts Bernie at about 1,090. Or about 60 delegates closer than you have him.

I assume he's looking at the AP numbers quoted by Google, which has Sanders about 1358 delegates away from 2383. And until Sanders demonstrates that he's actually going to get enough pledged delegates to make the superdelegates nervous, it's a safe assumption that they're going to stay loyal Clinton supporters.

[Gandalf]

Assuming the super delegates don't shift, and are willing to risk torpedoing the party in the general election by going against the popular vote/pledged delegates if Sanders takes the lead their.

That's an incredibly big if. Not impossible, but with each state that passes it gets less likely, as GrandMasterTerwynn outlined.

Assuming the super delegates don't shift, and are willing to risk torpedoing the party in the general election by going against the popular vote/pledged delegates if Sanders takes the lead their.

Also, what is your source for 1350 away for Sanders?

Even CNN puts Bernie at about 1,090. Or about 60 delegates closer than you have him.

I assume he's looking at the AP numbers quoted by Google, which has Sanders about 1358 delegates away from 2383. And until Sanders demonstrates that he's actually going to get enough pledged delegates to make the superdelegates nervous, it's a safe assumption that they're going to stay loyal Clinton supporters.

Correct.

[Omega18]

Indeed. To be fair, Sanders will probably come away with about 66% of Wisconsin's delegates, thanks to their convoluted delegate-apportioning rules.

Actually you're mistaken on this point with Sanders coming away with perhaps 48 of the 86 delegates or a bit under 56% of the available delegates.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed. To be fair, Sanders will probably come away with about 66% of Wisconsin's delegates, thanks to their convoluted delegate-apportioning rules. So tonight is a genuine victory for him, since it gets him closer. He'll probably win a significant portion of Wyoming's 14 delegates on Saturday, since Wyoming is a western caucus state, and they've been breaking for Sanders by ridiculous margins. However, he needs to win New York with what, 57-58% of the vote in order to continue to cut Clinton's delegate lead at a fast enough pace to get the majority of pledged delegates by the convention.

Bull. Shit.

He supposedly needed an average of 58% of remaining pledged delegates, to get the majority, before his recent string of big wins.

However, that is an average. It is absolutely disgusting that people keep treating this as what he needs to win in every single state, as if going below that in one state means its over for him. Do you not fucking understand what an average is? Or are you being dishonest?

I mean, math is really not my strong suite, so if even I can see this, it must be pretty obvious.

Seriously, New York should be one of Clinton's strong states (and until recently, at least, their were polls showing her winning it in a landslide). If Sanders gets even close to the average he needs in New York, its a reasonable guess he'll be exceeding it in other places, balancing out to more than enough delegates to take the lead in pledged delegates.

Since polling shows that Clinton is likely to win New York with at least 53% of the vote, this is unlikely.

Considering that not long ago, their were polls putting Clinton somewhere like 20, 30, or even 40 points or more ahead in New York, if its down to 53% with two weeks to go that bodes pretty well for Bernie.

Furthermore the next big chunk of states to vote on the 26th is looking very favorable for Clinton. The only state voting on the 26th that shows any promise of being a Sanders pickup is Rhode Island (what few polls there are show either Clinton or Sanders winning by about 8 points.) The big prize on the 26th, Pennsylvania, looks to be a lock for Clinton, as she enjoys nearly a 30 point lead, and the undecided voters have been breaking evenly for her and Sanders as time goes on.

You think Connecticut won't go Bernie?

Hell, even CNN tonight was talking about Bernie maybe winning Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware.

Also, I don't think you can simply discount the effect a Bernie win in New York (however unlikely it may be) could have on the momentum and electability argument.

There's a dearth of information about the states voting in May, but none of them are really big prizes. In June, the biggest prize is California, and so far it's not looking like it's going to be a Sanders upset. Even if he does win it, unless he spends the rest of this month and May racking up an unbroken string of solid victories, it won't matter.

I mean, I feel like this conversation is almost pointless, because if you are going to argue that Sanders has to win large victories in every single state for the remainder of the primary until California and win California... you're either completely stupid, complete nuts, or a shameless liar. Or some combination of the preceding.

I mean, maybe if you assume the Superdelegates will remain pretty much lockstep behind Clinton no matter what, but frankly, if Sanders tied Clinton for the rest of the primary until California (obviously not tied in every state, but winning some and loosing some) and then won big in California, California is big enough that it alone could erase Clinton's pledged delegate lead.

Not likely, perhaps, but within the realm of possibility. Two months is a lot of time for Clinton's lead in California to disappear, and it looks like Bernie will sweep the rest of the west coast handily.

So, tl;dr, the story of the Democratic nomination remains unchanged ... Sanders has enough support to continue to hound Clinton all the way to the convention, but he doesn't have enough to actually stop her from getting the nomination on the first try. Pretty much the same story that's been told about this Democratic primary season since late February.

Bull. Shit.

See above.

Could Clinton win? Absolutely. Is she more likely to win, even if only via super delegates? Probably.

Certain, or even close to it? Fuck no.

Fortunately, though, it doesn't really look like it's going to be that urgent for Democrats to hurry up and get behind Clinton. Cruz's solid thrashing of Trump tonight basically guarantees a GOP convention floor-fight, likely to produce a compromise candidate hated by the Republican base, since none of them will have had a real hand in choosing him. And, bad news for the GOP compromise candidate, it is possible that they'll have to fend off a third-party challenge from Trump. Clinton might not even have to worry that much about how she'll appeal to the young, disaffected, voters who supported Sanders in the primaries since a rightward jog towards "center" is likely to net her more votes.

I wouldn't assume that. It would be terribly risky to assume that the general election is in the bag. And moving towards the Centre/Right is a classic Democratic Party mistake.

And I don't know that their are a lot of people who are on the fence about Clinton. She might very well lose more liberals than she gains moderates/conservatives.

Unfortunately, the Republican clusterfuck makes it more likely that a lot of the super delegates will ignore the will of the voters and back Clinton against them if it comes down to that, because they may assume they can pull whatever fuckery they want on their own base without fear of losing the general election.

I hope they're not that corrupt and stupid, but I wouldn't put it past some of them.

I assume he's looking at the AP numbers quoted by Google, which has Sanders about 1358 delegates away from 2383. And until Sanders demonstrates that he's actually going to get enough pledged delegates to make the superdelegates nervous, it's a safe assumption that they're going to stay loyal Clinton supporters.

Perhaps, at least for most of them.

However, it should be noted that their is still a sizeable chunk of super delegates (something on the order of a couple hundred, I believe) who have not yet backed anyone. What are they waiting for? Probably to see who comes out ahead in the primary contests, at least in part.

And if Sanders does get a lead in pledged delegates, there is a very compelling argument to be made in his favour.

Maybe the super delegates would still mostly go to Clinton. Maybe they'd be that stupid and corrupt. That's probably the strongest argument for Sanders to drop out. In a way, it would be better for him to be crushed than to win the pledged delegates and lose it to the super delegates, because that would imperil the general election.

But I hate the thought of Sanders dropping out simply for fear that the party establishment will spit on democracy and reason.

[The Romulan Republic]

I do think a lot probably depends on New York.

A strong win for Clinton their makes a Sanders victory very unlikely.

A Sanders win their, however, would be a rather shocking upset, and deal a sever blow to Clinton's image and morale, which could effect her chances in other states down the line.

A narrow Clinton win wouldn't change much I think. Embarrassing that it was so close in a state that should have been a landslide win for her, but she'd still be the front runner, still the likely winner, in the eyes of much of the public and the media, and of course the delegate count wouldn't change much, except that Sanders would have lost a chance to substantially narrow the gap.

New York will by no means settle the outcome beyond a reasonable doubt. Not unless its a truly ridiculous blowout, anyway, and I don't realistically see that happening. But it could be a pretty strong indicator of the direction of the race.

[Omega18]

You think Connecticut won't go Bernie?

Its by no means certain that it will, especially since Connecticut has a larger defense industry percentage wise than many other states and Sander may make some union defense industry employees who are Democrats nervous.

Hell, even CNN tonight was talking about Bernie maybe winning Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware.

A Delaware win would actually be quite surprising and a bigger surprise in fact in some respects than Sanders winning New York. Delaware is around 21.4% African-American and also has the lower portion of the state have somewhat of a Southern culture. I suspect CNN was talking about Delaware due to a lack of polling and possibly knowledge, given even in scenarios where Bernie catches up in delegates he likely loses Delaware.

Fivethrityeight has this recent article projecting what Sanders would need to do in each remaining state adjusting for demographics and the like to catch up from the pledged delegate gap.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its ... delegates/

Now its true that Sanders can conceivably under perform in specific states and make it up elsewhere such as California, but beyond a certain extent it really gets more and more implausible.(Notably they have Delaware as a state Sanders still loses in their base hypothetical projection where Sanders actually catches up in delegates.)

Edit: A solid enough Clinton win in New York would certainly make a viable path forward for Sanders very difficult and put Hillary in a potential position to effectively end the competitive primary on April 26th.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I think its close enough, and California (and the other states that vote that day) big enough, that its unlikely that anyone will take a majority of pledged delegates before California votes.

But it can easily become more or less likely for Sanders to win depending on what happens between now and then, of course, and like I said, a resounding Clinton win in New York would screw him pretty badly. Even I'd probably give serious thought again to Sanders conceding if he lost New York in a landslide.

As to Connecticut, I'd be less worried about the defence industry and more worried about Clinton harping on Sanders not being anti-gun enough, since Connecticut was the site of the Sandy Hook shooting.

But I'm inclined to give it to Sanders in my predictions/guesses because outside of Massachusetts, he's won every New England State thus far (and Massachusetts was close).

[Terralthra]

It's mathematically pretty unlikely that either candidate on the Democratic side will achieve a pledged-delegate majority sufficient to clinch the nomination before the convention, barring disaster on one candidate's part or the other. It's only slightly to moderately unlikely that Sen. Sanders will take a majority of pledged delegates short of a majority of all delegates. If Sec. Clinton maintains her significant pledged-delegate lead to the convention, I'd expect the superdelegates will maintain their current alignment and give her the nomination. If Sen. Sanders takes the lead, or makes it a statistical tie, I'd expect things to get...dicey...at the convention. Either candidate could make a reasonable argument at that point.

I personally would much rather have President Sanders than President Clinton II, for a variety of reasons I don't feel the need to go into right now, but if Sec. Clinton maintains her lead and the superdelegates vote her as the candidate on the first ballot, well, that's the way primaries work. She's demonstrated a complete willingness to say whatever will get herself funding and votes, so it becomes incumbent on me to show willingness to vote for her so that she continues to pretend to give a shit about progressive causes instead of tacking directly to the imperialist and crony-capitalist status quo.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I do think that Sanders has already built a strong enough movement for the Progressive Left/Democratic Socialism in the Democratic Party that a hypothetical nominee Clinton/President Clinton would be a fool to ignore them and swing to the Right.

Frankly, doing that in the general election is asking for the "Bernie or Bust" numbers to shoot through the roof, and doing that as President is asking to get primaried in four years.