The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Terralthra]

If the Progressive Left is really sizeable enough and powerful enough not to ignore in the general or as President, Sec. Clinton won't be the nominee, as she's already trying to pivot to the status quo. Note her weird attempt to compromise between pro-life and pro-choice positions by calling a fetus an "unborn person" but denying it Constitutional rights. If that isn't a pivot to the right, I don't know what is.

[The Romulan Republic]

If the Progressive Left doesn't have a majority, then its not too big to ignore? That's... an odd attitude.

I mean, Clinton could ignore it if she's the nominee. It would just be mind-numbingly stupid and irresponsible of her.

But then, for all her experience and skill as a debater, I'm starting to think that Hillary Clinton isn't a particularly skilled campaigner. She's just built up a lot of connections and influence over a long career which gives her an advantage disproportionate to her appeal as a candidate or her campaigning skill.

Edit: That fetus comment sound really stupid though.

I mean... if its a person, how can it not have rights? At best she could try to argue "It has rights, but the rights of the mother override its rights if its a choice between the two." Which rather muddles the issue more than most people would likely care for.

And its certainly an odd choice for someone who's run heavily on how they're a woman representing women and feminism.

Like I said, it makes me question her competency as a campaigner as well as her honesty.

[Terralthra]

Sec. Clinton has roughly 6.7% of the eligible electorate, with Sen. Sanders not far behind at about 5.7%. If the "Progessive Left" that cares about, you know, women being people with the right to control when and if they get pregnant, can't energize an additional 1% of the electorate to register and go to polls, no, they're not too big to ignore.

As I say, she has demonstrated a consistent willingness to say whatever she thinks will get her elected. She's touted her pro-choice and feminist credentials, to the point of inviting prominent feminist icons to stump for her, but she'll say "unborn person" if it gets her some votes. Of course, now she's getting shade thrown from both right and left over the bizarre juxtaposition of an "unborn person with no rights."

[The Romulan Republic]

Its a stunningly stupid position to take.

[Mr Bean]

Its a stunningly stupid position to take.

Turns out without Prep Time she's not that great of a politician. And that's my comparison to Batman of the day.

Seriously RR, unless Bernie wins New York he's mathematically done because the win % of California shoots into the 70% range. And in theory Bernie Sanders can win 70% of the vote in California but if he were capable of that we should have seen evidence of it.... in New York.

Which is why a win in New York is vital, a big win even more vital.

But baring that we are headed for a time of wonders, and that is TWO Contested Conventions in the same year.

[Dalton]

But baring that we are headed for a time of wonders, and that is TWO Contested Conventions in the same year.

I honestly doubt that. While I think the GOP will go to a contested convention that will end in a GIGANTIC clusterfuck, Hillary will probably clinch at some point in May.

[The Romulan Republic]

Misattributed that quote to me.

And no, no way Hillary secures it beyond doubt in May. Not unless the unbroken string of recent Sanders victories completely collapses anyway.

Its too close, with too many delegates left to be counted, and too big a day coming up in June (California, which alone could conceivably erase Clinton's pledged delegate lead if Sanders won it by enough, plus several other states) for it to be likely to be settled in May.

Possibly it will be effectively settled (barring any super delegate fuckery by either side) when California votes (last primary/caucus day other than DC, I believe), as opposed to going to the convention.

But in May? I'll eat my hat.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

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.

Big wins? He won large majorities in relatively small caucus states. The only "big" win he can claim is Wisconsin. Clinton still holds a near-unassailable lead in delegates.

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?

Frankly, Sanders would be doing dizzyingly well to win the average in every remaining state. I feel like a broken record when I say this, but the demographics don't favor Sanders, and the correlation between a state's demographics and Sanders' performance has been too high to simply ignore. If you look at the upcoming contests where Sanders should do well, the relatively paltry delegate numbers they have to offer won't be enough to offset him losing the bigger contests, or else, not winning them by anything near that magic number. His path to the nomination is really that steep.

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.

If ... IF ... he gets close to the average he needs in New York. Current polling data shows him losing by at least six points. There are no polls taken in the last month that shows Sanders even coming close to winning. None whatsoever. If he loses New York, he can probably expect to get shut out on the 26th. If he gets shut out on the 26th, his path to the nomination is to, basically, hope that Clinton dies of something before June.

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.

You have to look at the numbers each candidate is getting. Hillary Clinton has been polling at 53-55% in pretty much any poll you can point to. The bulk of the growth of Sanders' support appears to be coming from previously undecided voters. That is, of course, a simplistic way of looking at the numbers ... the truth is that there is undoubtedly some churn among Clinton and Sanders supporters, but the fact that Clinton still polls well above fifty percent does not, in any way, bode well for Sanders.

And it's not like Sanders has done anything to help himself. In fact, it appears that Sanders went out of his way to demonstrate that he knows nothing outside of his talking points. Yes, he's being defended by his usual fluffers at HuffPo and in non-news activist sites like US Uncut, but it's hard to assign him too much credibility if he's going to go out of his way to shoot himself in the foot.

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?

I do not think that Connecticut will be a Sanders win. Certainly not enough of a Sanders win to balance the margin I expect him to lose by in Pennsylvania. It might be competitive, but it doesn't look like the sort of state he's going to pick up with 58% of the vote.

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

As has been mentioned, it would be amazing if he won Delaware. Where Delaware isn't a suburb of Philadelphia, it's pretty much the South.

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.

I can, and I shall, discount the effect of a Sanders win in New York. For me to count it, I'd first have to believe it was going to happen.

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.

:banghead:

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.

For Sanders to take the nomination from Clinton, he has to win all but three of the remaining contests. While, on average, he needs to win them by thirteen points; in reality, he's going to have to win most of them by a lot more than that ... and that's assuming he somehow wins New York and Pennsylvania, and if he somehow does so by more than a couple of points.

[The Romulan Republic]

wins? He won large majorities in relatively small caucus states. The only "big" win he can claim is Wisconsin. Clinton still holds a near-unassailable lead in delegates.

Washington isn't a small state any more than Wisconsin is.

But of course, caucuses don't count because Sanders does well in them.

Frankly, Sanders would be doing dizzyingly well to win the average in every remaining state. I feel like a broken record when I say this, but the demographics don't favor Sanders, and the correlation between a state's demographics and Sanders' performance has been too high to simply ignore. If you look at the upcoming contests where Sanders should do well, the relatively paltry delegate numbers they have to offer won't be enough to offset him losing the bigger contests, or else, not winning them by anything near that magic number. His path to the nomination is really that steep.

Which magic number? The ridiculous assuming no super delegates switch to him no matter what 70%? Or the more sane 58% (now slightly less)?

If ... IF ... he gets close to the average he needs in New York. Current polling data shows him losing by at least six points. There are no polls taken in the last month that shows Sanders even coming close to winning. None whatsoever. If he loses New York, he can probably expect to get shut out on the 26th. If he gets shut out on the 26th, his path to the nomination is to, basically, hope that Clinton dies of something before June.

Well, there's always that possible indictment.

But leaving that aside, six points isn't a huge lead. I'll get into that more later.

I also think you are discounting the effect Clinton losing New York could have. I think if that happened, you might start to see poll numbers shift big time in other states.

You have to look at the numbers each candidate is getting. Hillary Clinton has been polling at 53-55% in pretty much any poll you can point to. The bulk of the growth of Sanders' support appears to be coming from previously undecided voters. That is, of course, a simplistic way of looking at the numbers ... the truth is that there is undoubtedly some churn among Clinton and Sanders supporters, but the fact that Clinton still polls well above fifty percent does not, in any way, bode well for Sanders.

Wait, are you talking New York or nationwide here?

I've seen multiple polls recently that put Sanders very close to or above Clinton nationwide.

Still upwards of a week to go until New York, in any case. And a debate in Brooklyn. And Wyoming, which ought to be a Sanders blowout. And a six point lead really isn't all that spectacular considering how far some previous polling has been off and what a lock she should have on New York. And were those polls taken before Wisconsin?

But none of it matter because it doesn't fit the Clinton inevitability narrative.

And it's not like Sanders has done anything to help himself. In fact, it appears that Sanders went out of his way to demonstrate that he knows nothing outside of his talking points. Yes, he's being defended by his usual fluffers at HuffPo and in non-news activist sites like US Uncut, but it's hard to assign him too much credibility if he's going to go out of his way to shoot himself in the foot.

I haven't read the whole interview, and I probably should, but from what I've heard the reporting on it has been heavily distorted.

In any case, its just one interview, and if you are looking at one interview to have a significant affect on the race smacks a little of desperation. Everyone has off days.

Also, I don't expect a great deal of detail in an interview in the primary.

Sanders has decades of experience in Congress.

I do not think that Connecticut will be a Sanders win. Certainly not enough of a Sanders win to balance the margin I expect him to lose by in Pennsylvania. It might be competitive, but it doesn't look like the sort of state he's going to pick up with 58% of the vote.

What do you base that on?

As has been mentioned, it would be amazing if he won Delaware. Where Delaware isn't a suburb of Philadelphia, it's pretty much the South.

Well, I'll accept this, for now.

I can, and I shall, discount the effect of a Sanders win in New York. For me to count it, I'd first have to believe it was going to happen.

If he does win New York, leaving aside how likely that is, would it affect in any way your opinion on weather or not he has a realistic chance of winning the nomination?

For Sanders to take the nomination from Clinton, he has to win all but three of the remaining contests.

Horse shit.

This is based on some pretty big assumptions, I think, about the margins of victory in the states in question.

To state as an absolute fact that he must win all but three states is misleading, and in my opinion constitutes outright dishonesty.

In any case, if the almost unbroken string of double digit wins since the 15th. of March is anything to go by, those aren't such bad odds. Yeah, I know the assumption is that he can't do well outside of caucuses (questionable in light of his half dozen or so non-caucus wins) and that he can't win in states with a lot of black people (somewhat better founded, but I would not treat it as an absolute because I don't like to make assumptions about how people in one state will vote based on how people of the same race voted in other states). But seriously, its stunning that people can simply write off a candidate so easily and stubbornly after a streak like that.

While, on average, he needs to win them by thirteen points; in reality, he's going to have to win most of them by a lot more than that ... and that's assuming he somehow wins New York and Pennsylvania, and if he somehow does so by more than a couple of points.

Well, let's see what happens in New York and Pennsylvania.

Clinton's leads in those states are hardly big enough that I'd be feeling certain were I in her shoes. And I don't think she is feeling certain, given how fiercely she's attacked Sanders lately and her reluctance to debate in New York.

Is she in the lead right now, delegate-wise? Indisputably. I simply find the smug, stubborn assumption that she basically can't lose deeply irritating. I'd kind of like to see her lose just for that reason at this point, to be honest.

[Vendetta]

But of course, caucuses don't count because Sanders does well in them.

Caucuses "don't count" because there are none left. Sanders has consistently done better in states which hold caucuses not primaries, but all those states have now voted.

Which magic number? The ridiculous assuming no super delegates switch to him no matter what 70%? Or the more sane 58% (now slightly less

The thing about the Superdelegates is that they're kinda intended to be a brake on exactly this scenario, a party outsider grabbing the helm. In order for them to switch in any kind of significant number, Sanders' pledged delegate lead before the convention will have to be large enough to make him look like he has a very clear mandate from the party. Even if he only just wins the pledged delegates from the states he won't win overall, he would have to have a clear lead by the convention, which means he needs big wins in the remaining big states.

[The Romulan Republic]

Caucuses "don't count" because there are none left. Sanders has consistently done better in states which hold caucuses not primaries, but all those states have now voted.

1. Their are actually two caucuses left: Wyoming and North Dakota.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... /schedule/

Not big states, granted, or a lot of states. But let's not get sloppy with the facts.

2. This is irrelevant to the point we were discussing, which is weather Bernie had scored any big wins in the last period of the campaign besides Wisconsin. He did. Washington. Caucus or not, I'd call it a big win.

3. You could argue caucuses are irrelevant for predicting non-caucus states. But honestly, Bernie's won quite a few primaries too. Clinton's won more, but a lot of them were in the South, which is done voting.

The thing about the Superdelegates is that they're kinda intended to be a brake on exactly this scenario, a party outsider grabbing the helm. In order for them to switch in any kind of significant number, Sanders' pledged delegate lead before the convention will have to be large enough to make him look like he has a very clear mandate from the party. Even if he only just wins the pledged delegates from the states he won't win overall, he would have to have a clear lead by the convention, which means he needs big wins in the remaining big states.

Yeah, I know the super delegates are here to override the will of the voters if they pick someone the party bosses don't like. Which is why I think they're an absolutely horrible thing to have, and why I feel they should be urged to back whoever the people back pending, ideally, their eventual abolition.

How big do you think Sanders' lead would need to be to persuade a sizeable number to jump ship (also, keep in mind that their is, or was last I heard, a sizeable chunk of super delegates who have not yet gone to either candidate)?

But mark my words: stupid as I find it, if the super delegates go against the choice of the voters, I expect "Bernie or Bust" numbers to shoot up. It would be insanely stupid.

But the Republican side is such a clusterfuck right now the super delegates may figure they've got the general election in the bag and they can get away with whatever they want.

Edit: Added some stuff I previously left out of the first part of the post.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here is Bernie's list of primary (non-caucus) wins:

New Hampshire.
Oklahoma.
Vermont.
Michigan.
Wisconsin.
Democrats Abroad.

All but one by double digits.

Subtract the South (all voted now), and Clinton doesn't have a lot more primary wins than Bernie. In fact I believe she has seven (one more), presuming you don't count Missouri, Arkansas, or Tennessee as South. If you do... well then its even worse for Clinton.

Also, Illinois, Missouri, and Massachusetts were primaries and razor-close, unlike Sanders' almost unbroken string of double digit wins in the primaries he's won.

Did I miss anything?

Edit: So, in summary, I don't think primary=bad for Bernie, by any means.

[Mr Bean]

If the Superdelegates end up selecting the nomine don't expect the Democratic party to continue to have Superdelegates. Regardless of who they pick I believe that baring a miracle or indictment of Hillary Clinton, Sectary Clinton will be walking into the party convention with 1. More total votes, 2. More total delegates, 3. More committed superdelegates.

The only question is if she has enough to win on the first ballot WITHOUT superdelegates. If she does not expect bad things to happen. If she does expect not as bad but much less bad things to happen which the media will either viciously downplay or over inflate depending on their voters perspective.

Also RR your not allowed to make an appeal for how great Bernie Sanders is doing compared to Hillary Clinton by throw out the entire south. President Obama tried to win several southern states and almost managed it. Demographics eight years later are even more favorable in both North Carolina and Texas. If your argument depends on "not counting states because Republican" it's not a cogent argument.

[Raw Shark]

If Sanders loses the primary because of the superdelegates betraying the will of the people to suck the status quo dick, but it results in major reforms that kill off the whole superdelegate concept, I will grit my teeth but chalk it up as a long-term win.

[Gaidin]

Subtract the South (all voted now),

Are you just saying they shouldn't have a primary or are you just admitting they're bad for your hilariously constructed point?

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't call it a win. The Presidency is more important than some party procedural reform, however badly I want it.

Also RR your not allowed to make an appeal for how great Bernie Sanders is doing compared to Hillary Clinton by throw out the entire south. President Obama tried to win several southern states and almost managed it. Demographics eight years later are even more favorable in both North Carolina and Texas. If your argument depends on "not counting states because Republican" it's not a cogent argument.

Are you simply clueless about the point of the discussion, or lying?

Yeah, I'm inclined to assume lying, though to be entirely fair, I can't rule out that you're just being an imbecile.

I am not saying that the South doesn't count.

I am saying that when discussing how Sanders might fair in upcoming contests, the South is of dubious relevancy to predicting how well he will do in future primary states, as their are no future Southern primaries, and outside of the South, Clinton hasn't done drastically better in primaries.

Their's this idea that Sanders does badly in primaries, and it doesn't really hold up outside the South.

Got it?

Gaidin, see above, and fuck off.

[Gaidin]

If Sanders loses the primary because of the superdelegates betraying the will of the people to suck the status quo dick, but it results in major reforms that kill off the whole superdelegate concept, I will grit my teeth but chalk it up as a long-term win.

He better actually do what Obama did and get a damn lead. Supers made the decision with only a hundred delegate difference between them if I recall correctly.

[Raw Shark]

He better actually do what Obama did and get a damn lead. Supers made the decision with only a hundred delegate difference between them if I recall correctly.

If he is to win, yes. But a difference could be made here in the long term even with a short term loss, if the party discards the corrupt back-handed superdelegate system behind it, after a front-stage showcase of what bullshit it is.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have a horrible feeling they'd probably only do that if super delegate horse shit cost them the general election.

And sorry, making a point of how much super delegates suck isn't worth someone like Drumpf or Cruz becoming President.

[Gaidin]

He better actually do what Obama did and get a damn lead. Supers made the decision with only a hundred delegate difference between them if I recall correctly.

If he is to win, yes. But a difference could be made here in the long term even with a short term loss, if the party discards the corrupt back-handed superdelegate system behind it, after a front-stage showcase of what bullshit it is.

What I'm saying is Bernie isn't special. He needs to make up god knows how many delegates just to have a case for them to switch. As for him losing the primaries losing and them just checking the check box?

I expect a new River to be cried by the Bernie Bros.

[Raw Shark]

I have a horrible feeling they'd probably only do that if super delegate horse shit cost them the general election.

And sorry, making a point of how much super delegates suck isn't worth someone like Drumpf or Cruz becoming President.

Please. Clinton will win the general if Sanders doesn't. Not that I think that's a great thing, but you can stop hyperventilating. That crazy Donny Jingles fucker stands to gain nothing here but publicity and/or third-party spoiler status. I, for one, am aiming higher for electoral reform in this election, because I'm a hopeless dumbass idealist with my eyes on the sky. Is it likely? Maybe not. But at least possible.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have a horrible feeling they'd probably only do that if super delegate horse shit cost them the general election.

And sorry, making a point of how much super delegates suck isn't worth someone like Drumpf or Cruz becoming President.

Please. Clinton will win the general if Sanders doesn't. Stop hyperventilating. That crazy Donny Jingles fucker stands to gain nothing here but publicity. I, for one, am aiming higher for reform in this election. Is it likely? Maybe not. But at least possible.

This is not hyperventilating, dip shit.

You are seriously accusing me of hyperventilating because I basically said that I doubted the Democrats would get rid of the super delegates unless it cost them the general election (not even saying it would, just discussing a hypothetical), briefly discussed a theoretical scenario in which the Republicans win the general election, and said that it would be a bad thing.

That's all.

I mean, even if I had said "I think they'd lose the general election, and its not worth it to get rid of the super delegates", or something to that effect, even that wouldn't be hyperventilating. Its not fucking hyperventilating to consider the possibility that the other side might want the general election. Its called not being an arrogant shit.

And don't act all holier than thou. I want reform too. But the Republicans winning would mean a great deal of "reform" in entirely the wrong way.

Edit: Honestly, this is the kind of attitude I'm worried about the Democratic leadership/super delegates having. An arrogant assumption that they can't lose, potentially leading to stupid mistakes.

[Raw Shark]

Calm the fuck down and take a step back from name-calling, and also observe my criticism regarding their=there, you easily-excitable and marginally-literate kid. Donny Jingles has 33% of a 33% party in his corner and doesn't stand a chance besides gaining media attention in the general. Worst case scenario we get Cynical Hils for 4-8 years. This is a wake-up call, not an apocalypse.

[The Romulan Republic]

Calm the fuck down and take a step back from name-calling, and also observe my criticism regarding their=there, you easily-excitable kid.

Well, aren't you a smug, condescending asshole?

You are literally accused me of hyperventilating and generally behaved in an insulting, arrogant manner for pretty much no other reason than because I suggested it might be possible for the Democrats to lose the general election. And questioned weather they'd be willing to get rid of the super delegates otherwise.

The arrogance of that is astounding. But instead of admitting you overreacted yourself (hypocrite), you decided to double down on being patronizing and arrogant.

And if people insult me, condescend to me, or misrepresent me, you better believe I won't react politely, nor am I under any obligation to on this board. Frankly, my response thus far has been more civil than I'd like.

Donny Jingles has 33% of a 33% party in his corner and doesn't stand a chance besides gaining media attention in the general. Worst case scenario we get Cynical Hils for 4-8 years. This is a wake-up call, not an apocalypse.

I never said it was an apocalypse. I said it would be possible for the Democrats to lose, that I didn't think they'd get rid of the super delegate other wise, and that it would be a very bad thing.

What, in that, is in any way alarmist?

Frankly, I feel like because I've admittedly posted alarmist things in the past, you feel its an accusation that you can use against me any time you want to discard what I'm saying without having to make a real argument.

I consider this dishonesty, and will react accordingly.

Edit: You also seem to be assuming Drumpf will be the Republican nominee. As the Republicans are almost certainly going to a brokered convention, that seems premature.

[Gandalf]

Edit: You also seem to be assuming Drumpf will be the Republican nominee. As the Republicans are almost certainly going to a brokered convention, that seems premature.

According to fivethirtyeight, right now it's 50/50 on Trump getting the round one win, because of the crystallisation of the not-Trump vote around Cruz. If Trump doesn't get it, then Cruz likely takes away the contested convention. So... fun times for all I suppose watching that bloodbath.

EDIT: Also, it's interesting to see Drumpf persisting as a thing. Takes me back to 2008.