OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 minute ago, The Iceman of the North said: Just a question. At least over here, it's reported that New Hampshire was a big win for Sanders, still (according to HuffPost) with four delegates undecided, Hillary (15) have two more delegates from NH than Sanders (13). Doesn't appear to be too much of a win for Sanders, even with 60% of the votes. That number probably includes super delegates (elected Democrats and party officials) who declared for Clinton before the primary. Sanders won 13 - 9 in regular delegates, decided by voters. It's true, though, that in delegates this win is not all that significant. Its significance is in terms of winning the media narrative and trying to parlay that into future victories (far from a foregone conclusion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Yeah, including the superdelegates is rather misleading. The delegates won during the primary are bound to vote for the candidate, the superdelegates can change their mind at any time. If they actually stick to what they said, Sanders basically cannot win... but they're not obliged to do so and they probably won't if he starts winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Probably not. It would be political suicide if the superdelegates ignored the primary results. Assuming Sanders gets the nod from the base by winning most delegates in the primaries, and the DNC decides to overrule their base and still award the ticket to Clinton, then it would haunt them in the general election big time. Not to mention that their base would then really go after establishment candidates in the primaries during the upcoming election seasons. Sanders and Trump are both benefitting from an anti-establishment mood. The party establishment then changing the candidates at the conventions would be really like trying to put a fire (a bad candidate) out with gasoline. Even running against one of the boogeymen (Trump or Cruz) might in this case not be enough to get their base to vote for an unwanted candidate, and a third candidate might start to actually have a shot in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Indeed, I'm fairly confident that the superdelegates will change their minds depending on who is winning the elections. That said, I'm rather surprised at how much raw anger there is in this race. It's there for both parties, though the Sanders crowd is much more polite than the Trump one. It'll be interesting to see what will happen with that anger. If any of the establishment candidates wins (at this point, the most likely winner of the general election appears to be Clinton), all of the conditions that have generated the anger will remain and in fact will almost certainly be exacerbated. However, even Trump or Sanders wins, I'm not sure that it will go away -- they claim to be able to address the underlying conditions, but it's difficult to see how they will be able to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: Plus, all other things being equal, if you have a choice between someone who recently changed their position in order to support something that you think is good, when it's become broadly popular with the Democratic base, and between someone who held that same position, as a matter of principle, long before it became broadly popular with the Democratic base - who would you rather pick? Sanders was right on DOMA, right on opposing Bill Clinton's welfare reform, right on opposing Bill Clinton's "tough on crime" doubling down on the sentencing disparities on crack vs. powder cocaine, etc. And he was right about these things back when being right wasn't popular with the Democratic party because Bill and Hillary were triangulating the party far to the right. That shows character and principle. What was his vote on the Omnibus crime bill again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 For what it's worth: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969 Assuming the sources are telling the truth, this is pretty much what I expected. She didn't say anything controversial, per se, but her glowing remarks about Goldman Sachs are in stark contrast to her campaign speeches. And I'm guessing that if Sanders wasn't running she wouldn't be nearly as harsh on Wall St. as she currently is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, The Iceman of the North said: Just a question. At least over here, it's reported that New Hampshire was a big win for Sanders, still (according to HuffPost) with four delegates undecided, Hillary (15) have two more delegates from NH than Sanders (13). Doesn't appear to be too much of a win for Sanders, even with 60% of the votes. It's a win in terms of media narrative, sure, but it doesn't mean much unless other parts of the Democratic coalition, and not just those represented in New Hampshire, start to move Sanders' way. I haven't seen any sign that's happening, but there's still time. We'll see what happens between now and South Carolina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: It's a win in terms of media narrative, sure, but it doesn't mean much unless other parts of the Democratic coalition, and not just those represented in New Hampshire, start to move Sanders' way. I haven't seen any sign that's happening, but there's still time. We'll see what happens between now and South Carolina. It's 10 days until NV. That's plenty of time for momentum to swing, and NV is a better state for Sanders than SC. If he wins NV it could help swing SC. The fact that Clinton lost by 22% and failed to break 40% in NH is a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 29 minutes ago, Lightysnake88 said: What was his vote on the Omnibus crime bill again? Just so we're clear, the Omnibus crime bill didn't say anything about the sentencing disparities of crack vs. powder cocaine. That came as a rejection of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recommendations to make the punishments for crack and powder cocaine the same. That happened in 1995. The Omnibus Crime Bill was passed in 1994. I am certainly not going to argue that the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill, for which Sanders did vote, was an unqualified good. It certainly wasn't. But, it was a large, package deal which contained many provisions that absolutely WERE good things and continue to be good things. As just two, pretty enormous examples, the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill contained the entirety of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the Violence against Women Act - which are now considered to be two milestones of progressive legislation. As someone who regularly practices in the area of domestic violence law, it's impossible to overstate how much VAWA impacted the development of state laws on this issue. The Omnibus Crime Bill also provided significant financial assistance to the development of community policing officers and authorized the US Department of Justice to issue annual reports on the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers (which, of course, has never happened). Yes, it certainly had its fair share of bad, too. "Three Strikes" laws and eliminating grants for inmates to receiving higher education while in prison as two examples. The bill was a mixed bag, but voting for it was not a mistake. For posterity, Sanders' comments on the House floor during debate of the bill are transcribed here, with included video. I also think it's terribly ironic that if Sanders had not voted for this bill, he would be excoriated by the Clinton campaign for having voted against the Federal Assault Weapons ban. "Heads I Win, Tails you Lose." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: For what it's worth: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969 Assuming the sources are telling the truth, this is pretty much what I expected. She didn't say anything controversial, per se, but her glowing remarks about Goldman Sachs are in stark contrast to her campaign speeches. And I'm guessing that if Sanders wasn't running she wouldn't be nearly as harsh on Wall St. as she currently is. To be fair, she's not going to say bad things about GS if she's been paid to speak before them. It's common courtesy to say nice things about the audience you're speaking to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 minute ago, Mexal said: To be fair, she's not going to say bad things about GS if she's been paid to speak before them. It's common courtesy to say nice things about the audience you're speaking to. For $225,000 a pop, I'd pretty much say anything anybody wanted me to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said: For $225,000 a pop, I'd pretty much say anything anybody wanted me to. Isn't this kind of the point? If you're willing to say pretty much anything for $225k, what are you willing to say to win one of the most powerful positions on the planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, Mexal said: To be fair, she's not going to say bad things about GS if she's been paid to speak before them. It's common courtesy to say nice things about the audience you're speaking to. That's why I prefaced my comment. Fact is it's still a bad look to be taking money from GS and Wall St (money that goes directly into her bank accounts, mind you) while praising them for their job creation right after these same actors helped sink the economy. It's kind of odd that she even accepted them, considering she didn't need the money. Many political commentators posited that her accepting speaking fees was a sign she wasn't going to run in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: That's why I prefaced my comment. Fact is it's still a bad look to be taking money from GS and Wall St (money that goes directly into her bank accounts, mind you) while praising them for their job creation right after these same actors helped sink the economy. It's kind of odd that she even accepted them, considering she didn't need the money. Many political commentators posited that her accepting speaking fees was a sign she wasn't going to run in 2016. Why wouldn't you take the money? Shit, she bilked them for even more then they initially offered as I remember. The really relevant point is what they think of her as a politician. And on that front Wall Street donations to both Democrats are down compared to those to the GOP. It appears they do not think their speaking fee money bought any lack of regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 By the way, I just read on the Atlantic that TNC was planning on voting for Sanders. I imagine the reparations article was just putting his feet to the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Well, he didn't so much announce it as he was answering a question. TNC has fair critiques of both candidates, and made it clear he wasn't endorsing anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Our results site had 5 million page views last night www.decisiondeskhq.com We were ahead of the AP for most of the night. About 30 of us flew into NH to conduct an exit poll and we got 2k responses and got very close to the final result The morning responses actually had Bernie at 70% and Trump at 45% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Canadian news is quoting multiple US news sources as saying Chris Christie has decided to stop his campaign, after his poor showing in New Hampshire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 22 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Canadian news is quoting multiple US news sources as saying Chris Christie has decided to stop his campaign, after his poor showing in New Hampshire. He said yesterday he'd have to finish in the top 4 to not consider dropping out. Man, last night was as bad a result as possible for establishment Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Shryke said: Why wouldn't you take the money? Because if you have a challenger for the most powerful position in the world, it might not look so great taking that much direct spending cash from an industry that just brought the entire world to the brink of financial ruin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.