Kalbear Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 From what I saw of the voter suppression I would have predicted differently - it looked to be just crushing the student vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Wow, some squeakers in Illinois (for the Dems) and Missouri (for both sides)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Altherion--I think the Anti-Targ covered well for me in my absence, but I wanted to jump back in to my old post and say: I agree. The Wall Street side of Hillary is huge. It has been so big I have been kicking around not voting or voting green--I found it unfeasible voting for Clinton. After looking at the issue differently, I've come to the conclusion these particular circumstances are different, and I don't think I articulated that well. Ninety nine percent of the time, I feel like the Wall Street argument would keep me from voting at this point; however, the rise of Trump or potentially Cruz warrants enough civic responsibility in me to ask: do I need to vote for Clinton? And that's what led me to asking the question about voting for a man versus a woman in this context. I decided this is where my male-centric (word I made up?) view of the world would allow me to vote for a male as a "lesser evil" situation but in the case of Hillary Clinton? I was taking the moral high ground. This is why I have changed my mind. Going to the Green party, as a Colorado resident, seems iffy at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 1 minute ago, Simon Steele said: Altherion--I think the Anti-Targ covered well for me in my absence, but I wanted to jump back in to my old post and say: I agree. The Wall Street side of Hillary is huge. It has been so big I have been kicking around not voting or voting green--I found it unfeasible voting for Clinton. After looking at the issue differently, I've come to the conclusion these particular circumstances are different, and I don't think I articulated that well. Ninety nine percent of the time, I feel like the Wall Street argument would keep me from voting at this point; however, the rise of Trump or potentially Cruz warrants enough civic responsibility in me to ask: do I need to vote for Clinton? And that's what led me to asking the question about voting for a man versus a woman in this context. I decided this is where my male-centric (word I made up?) view of the world would allow me to vote for a male as a "lesser evil" situation but in the case of Hillary Clinton? I was taking the moral high ground. This is why I have changed my mind. Going to the Green party, as a Colorado resident, seems iffy at best. Simon, I just wanted to add to what others have said: I'm really impressed with your level of self-introspection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 20 minutes ago, alguien said: Wow, some squeakers in Illinois (for the Dems) and Missouri (for both sides)! Looks like Illinois is being called for Clinton, and only about 2000 votes separate 1st from 2nd place in Missouri on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan the Man Baratheon Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Sandernistas can sure cause a riot in Chicago, but not show up when it matters. Classic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 1 minute ago, Triskan said: Has anyone checked if any of these are verbatim from Trump's Twitter feed? They seem to use to many large words for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Looking at the Missouri results is fascinating. At the very least, because Roque "Rocky" de la Fuente is running, and his website looks like something that wants to sell you either insurance or porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 10 minutes ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said: Sandernistas can sure cause a riot in Chicago, but not show up when it matters. Classic! Picture Unrelated. http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4218626/Look/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, Triskan said: Has anyone checked if any of these are verbatim from Trump's Twitter feed? Trisky, St. Louis looks to be going Trump. How do you think this will affect their status as the classiest voters in America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Now looks like Clinton will make a clean sweep tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 3 hours ago, Martell Spy said: RIP Marco Roboto. In a truly awful year, he managed to be one of the worst. Hopefully he ends up vacuuming Jessie Pinkman's floors until he no longer functions. I gotta say, Marco's a snake, corrupt as hell, and an empty suit that will take any position that pleases his billionaire masters, but he did actually say some stuff the other day that was genuine and on point regarding Trump and this election. Yeah, it's a classic "the broken clock is right twice a day thing", but it was honestly more than I expected for him, and even worthy of some respect. Link Quote I think we also have to look at the rhetoric coming from the frontrunner in the presidential campaign. This is a man who in rallies has told his supporters to basically beat up the people who are in the crowd and he'll pay their legal fees, someone who has encouraged people in the audience to rough up anyone who stands up and says something he doesn't like. ... This has happened repeatedly now. This is not new. This is a pattern of the idea that: We are angry. And since we are angry we can say or do whatever we want. We are tired of being constrained by civility, tired of being constrained by rules of cultural engagement. We are tired of being told. And I get it, people are frustrated with the direction of our country. But leaders cannot say whatever they want, because words have consequences. They lead to actions that others take. And when the person you're supporting for president is going around and saying things like, 'Go ahead and slap them around, I'll pay your legal fees,' what do you think's going to happen next? ... This is a different level that we're discussing now. This is the intentional injection of the use of people's anger, basically. This is a political candidate in Donald Trump who has identified that there's some really angry people in America. They feel as if they've been mistreated by the culture, by society, by our politics, by our economy. And he knows this. And they have been in many instances. They really have. … And along comes a presidential candidate and says to you, "You know why your life is hard? Because fill in the blank — somebody, someone, some country — they're the reasons for it. Give me power, so I can go after them." That's what he's feeding into. That is not leadership. That is not productive leadership. That is not good leadership. And it is not keeping with our American tradition. That is a style of leadership that says, "I know you're angry, and I'm going to take advantage of it so that you vote for me." But what it overlooks is the consequences of it. Anyway, on another board I've been saying for months that tonight was the make or break day for Sanders, and it looks like it was a stake in the heart for his campaign. I think the final take away from tonight is that Clinton has learned the lessons from 2008 very well indeed. I hope she keeps it up, and gets the money, organization, ammo, and rest she'll need to kick 6 kinds of ass in the general, because it looks like we're really going to need her to bring her A game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan the Man Baratheon Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 7 minutes ago, Myshkin said: Trisky, St. Louis looks to be going Trump. How do you think this will affect their status as the classiest voters in America? Hillary is winning St. Louis as well. I would say they know how to pick winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Shryke said: Now looks like Clinton will make a clean sweep tonight. Yep, per Missouri's official reporting all precincts have reported in and Clinton won, by 1500 votes. If all the people who voted for Rocky and Jon Adams and the like had voted for Sanders he would have won. And yeah, PoI - Clinton learned the hard lesson in 2008 that winning states doesn't matter nearly as much as winning delegates does. People forget that Clinton had won big states like California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and Texas - but it didn't matter because she didn't win them by enough, and she lost those Southern states by big margins. This time she appears to have understood that really, really well and has been competitive in every single election save Vermont, which she appears to have completely given up on. Everything else she has fought for at least some share of the vote, and when she could she appears to have gone for absolutely dominating the vote. I kind of think this will help more than hurt in the long run. It gives her people more experience with each other and with the ebbs and flows of a campaign. I expect there are going to be Sanders wins for the next couple of months - the schedule gets really positive for him in theory (though after tonight, said narrative about momentum kind of gets thrown out the window) - but this result means Sanders will have to get really crazy results in order to even stay competitive, and if I were getting funding requests from him saying that with your support he can win, well, I'd be kind of angry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I suppose we should mention that it looks like Trump also won Missouri by about 1600 votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Yep. And that whole winner take all thing makes it much bigger of a deal. He's only gotten about 37% of the total Repub vote but has like 65% of the delegates, now. On the math thing - at the very least, Clinton now holds a 314 delegate lead over Sanders. (this is likely to increase, as some of the delegates aren't proportioned out yet). There are 1946 delegates left to go. For Sanders to win, he needs to get at least 1130 of those delegates - or 58%, or on average a +16 win everywhere. For this to happen he needs to hit the demographic marks listed here +13. That means some odd things like this: CA +18 WA +46 UT +44 WI +30 It would also mean that Sanders could only (barely) lose two states - MD and DC. That's it. Any result worse than that puts him off track for the nomination. Seriously, he can win California 58-42 and that is essentially a win for Clinton. He can win Washington 70-30 and that is essentially a win for Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan the Man Baratheon Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 5 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Yep. And that whole winner take all thing makes it much bigger of a deal. He's only gotten about 37% of the total Repub vote but has like 65% of the delegates, now. On the math thing - at the very least, Clinton now holds a 314 delegate lead over Sanders. (this is likely to increase, as some of the delegates aren't proportioned out yet). There are 1946 delegates left to go. For Sanders to win, he needs to get at least 1130 of those delegates - or 58%, or on average a +16 win everywhere. For this to happen he needs to hit the demographic marks listed here +13. That means some odd things like this: CA +18 WA +46 UT +44 WI +30 It would also mean that Sanders could only (barely) lose two states - MD and DC. That's it. Any result worse than that puts him off track for the nomination. Seriously, he can win California 58-42 and that is essentially a win for Clinton. He can win Washington 70-30 and that is essentially a win for Clinton. I dont think Sanders will win Arizona. IMO Sanders is mathematically done for, he is just running to waste people's money. He should throw his hat and endorse, as soon as possible. He can help democratic party shape up for the general election. I don't know if its too far fetched but Clinton/Sanders is very winnable against any Repub nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Now, here's the other interesting bit of math - the superdelegate one. I've been ignoring those as I figure they'll come in late, but as we saw with the 2008 primary they do come in earlier if (with their pledge) a candidate will hit the simple majority. This, for instance, caused the race to end essentially right after one of the elections and end early. Right now, Clinton has about 1650 delegates + superdelegates, with a target of 2382. 732 delegates needed. When will she hit that number? Not for a while, but sooner than you might think. If the demographic targets held up (which they did a pretty decent job of doing) or the poll numbers hold up (which are pretty close to the demos) she could reach that target with the May 17th primaries - Oregon and Kentucky. Which is appropriate given that it's mine and Bonesy's home states. Among other interesting facts, that would make the California primary basically moot. This also excludes the Guam, VI and Puerto Rico primaries which are actually fairly large amounts of delegates; this would make it potentially sooner if they basically go 50/50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 So remember all those Sanders people who were saying how undemocratic and unfair the superdelegate system is for the primaries, and how it sucks? Sanders...uh...is kinda hoping that they'll be for him. (alternately, is totally fucking high) Quote Sanders’ campaign thinks the next few weeks of the campaign calendar favor him and is preparing plans to make the uphill case to the superdelegates—the 718 activists and elected officials who can vote however they please—that his late-breaking momentum would make him a stronger nominee that they should support over Clinton. The Sanders forces have a big hill to climb: 467 of the superdelegates are currently pledged to Clinton, compared to 26 for Sanders, according to an Associated Press count. She also has at least a 324-vote lead in pledged delegates. But the Sanders campaign says that in a few weeks they will have the momentum to make their case. Yeah, I'm sure that'll go real well. Quote If Sanders looks to win the nomination with superdelegates despite being behind in pledged delegates, that will put him crosswise with some of his grassroots supporters. MoveOn.org, for example, has endorsed Sanders, but has also already collected close to 200,000 signatures on a petition to get rid of superdelegates. “We want him to win the primaries and caucuses, we want him to be the nominee, we want him to be the president,” said MoveOn Washington director Ben Wikler. “But we also think the nominee should be the person who wins the primaries and caucuses. If that’s Clinton, then Clinton should be the nominee, if that’s Sanders, Sanders should be the nominee.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 To be clear, my home state is California. But I absolutely do live and vote in Kentucky this year. On May 28th I will re-declare independent. Right after I vote for Sanders. And almost certainly vote for a hated Democrat later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.