US Elections: Children of the Revolution

[TrackerNeil]

18 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Not a huge he fan, beyond wanting her to win, but I never understand this one. I know that often it's more about how she treated her husband's accusers, but it also often seems to be pretty directly blaming her for his behaviour. I think some of her supporters also go to weird extremes in the other direction to defend how she apparently did treat those women, but the whole assosciation conversation usually strikes me as bizarre. 

I don't know why anyone thinks Hillary Clinton should have been kind and openhearted towards her husband's mistresses, but that is just me. I wonder if we'd expect Michelle Bachman's husband to be welcoming towards any men she was sleeping around with, I really do.**

**Naturally, he'd probably be sleeping with the same guys,but, you know.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

4 hours ago, Shryke said:

Like, here's a good example from Elizabeth Warren:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-tweetstorm

Of how easy Trump is to hit.

I love Elizabeth Warren!

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

3 hours ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

Trump's speech at AIPAC was mesmerizing. So many standing ovations. Far more than Hillary got.  And regressive leftists called him Hitler. Sad!

Quote

Hitler was an extraordinary speaker and had the ability to convince people that he could bring them out of their misery.

Quote

 

You are hurt and ashamed by the first major defeat to your nation in over a century. You are hurt economically and psychologically. You are looking for answers.

There is this young lad, who did “heroic” things in the war and who has the answers. He talks of German pride and honor. … Not unsurprisingly, Hitler got standing ovations.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Hitler-come-to-power

 

just replace the "heroic things" with "business things" and you have your answer.  Trump really is  tapping into the same feelings that Hitler tapped into.

[Togi]

Whatever the outcome, the majority of Americans do not trust the establishment anymore.
The money system is rigged. Few hyperwealthy people on the top control the money presses...and their greatest assets are not buildings, cars, companies...no, it is us who accept paper and build bridges, buildings, ships...

[Fez]

Almost no polling of the states voting tonight, other than Republicans in Utah. I'm predicting:

Arizona: Clinton wins by +15; Trump wins and gets above 50%

Utah: Sanders wins by +10; Cruz wins but does not get above 50%

Idaho: Sanders wins by +25

End result of the night: Sanders nets around 5 delegates, does not hit his targets to be on pace to catch up; Trump stays on pace on his targets to clinch the nomination

 

[aceluby]

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

What you are seeing going on with Sanders supporters is because Sanders has been running an openly and extremely hard anti-DNC/anti-establishment ticket since he figured out that's where the big funding came from. Of course his supporters are continuing to push that narrative.

And he has been running that anti-DNC/anti-establishment ticket because there is a large bloc of democratic voters who feel like the process has been undemocratic and the DNC/Hillary doesn't care about them.  You may think they are wrong, I may think they are wrong, but that is the feeling out there.  And because of this feeling, Hillary and the DNC are going to have a difficult time convincing that large bloc to vote for her in the election.  The DNC could have addressed some of these issues early in the campaign and decided not to.  It would not have been hard, and if she is as strong a candidate as her supporters keep claiming, the results would have been the same except there would be far more party unity.  That is on the DNC, but instead you get gems like this:

Quote

unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.

 

[Maithanet]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

Almost no polling of the states voting tonight, other than Republicans in Utah. I'm predicting:

Arizona: Clinton wins by +15; Trump wins and gets above 50%

Utah: Sanders wins by +10; Cruz wins but does not get above 50%

Idaho: Sanders wins by +25

End result of the night: Sanders nets around 5 delegates, does not hit his targets to be on pace to catch up; Trump stays on pace on his targets to clinch the nomination

Since Arizona has 75 delegates and Utah + Idaho combine for only 56, wouldn't your scenario mean Clinton increases her lead by 5, rather than Sanders?

[Guess who's back]

Bernie is not only Stalin, he is also Hitler.

[Fez]

Just now, Maithanet said:

Since Arizona has 75 delegates and Utah + Idaho combine for only 56, wouldn't your scenario mean Clinton increases her lead by 5, rather than Sanders?

I didn't try to figure out exactly how the math would break out. But delegate allocation is not strictly proportional in most states on the Democratic side. There's all kinds of thresholds and sometimes county-based delegates, etc. I think all the rules are here, if anyone wants to try to sort them. 

But basically, if the margins are what I predict, I think Clinton would net a handful of delegates out of Arizona and Sanders would net a handful of delegates out of Utah, which combined would result in Clinton at around +4 delegates or something like that. But Sanders would hit a high enough mark in Idaho that he'd win the delegates there something like 16-7 to give him the overall edge for the night.

That's all me just guessing though based on how the delegate allocations have looked in other states with similar winning margins. The rules for these states could be a bit different.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, Myshkin said:

Yeah, don't let the two and a half million more votes she's gotten than Sanders fool you, this primary is as undemocratic as it gets. If the DNC would just do the right thing and stop black people, Hispanics, and anyone over thirty-five from voting Bernie would win easily. And you know what? Southern states shouldn't get delegates anyway, because fuck 'em, they were part of the Confederacy. 

And let's talk about those superdelegates, even though at the moment THEY DON'T MATTER AT ALL. You know why almost every single one of them has gone to Clinton? It's not some nefarious establishment conspiracy; it's the fact that Clinton has been out there campaigning and fundraising for the party and its candidates. She works her ass off to get Democrats elected. It astounds me that Bernie complains about a lack of support from a party he largely ignores.

You do understand that it is both possible that Clinton is running a better campaign than Sanders AND the DNC has tipped the scales in her favor on a number of occasions? 

[TrackerNeil]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You do understand that it is both possible that Clinton is running a better campaign than Sanders AND the DNC has tipped the scales in her favor on a number of occasions? 

Look, I'm willing to accept that DWS has probably put a thumb on the scales for Clinton now and again, but the real question is: has it made a real difference? Would Bernie Sanders have more delegates now if things had been otherwise? Let's say he would have done 10% better (and that's pretty generous) in terms of delegates if the DNC had been more even-handed. Clinton would still have a significant lead and everything would be the same. So I don't think focusing on the DNC really explains what's happening in this race. I think Clinton is just more popular with Democrats.

[Altherion]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You do understand that it is both possible that Clinton is running a better campaign than Sanders AND the DNC has tipped the scales in her favor on a number of occasions? 

It's possible, but it is not the case. If Clinton was running a better campaign, Sanders would not be anywhere near as close as he is now. Clinton's lead is due to advantages that were present before the campaign: not only the support of the DNC, but also near-universal name recognition, allies transferring over from her husband, monopolization of the funding from major donors and the fact that her only competitor is an elderly socialist. Sanders has been unable to overcome these advantages, but he came much closer than most people thought he would.

[Fragile Bird]

21 hours ago, Notone said:

Which in itself is pretty funny (well at least to me). Just try to remember how long and hard she fought him in '08 almost all the way to the Democratic Convention. It must kinda sting that she is now forced to campaign in his shadow.

Huh?

Yes, just try to remember that.  But Clinton suspended her campaign on June 8th, almost 3 months ahead of the Democratic convention, which was held the weekend of August 25h - 28th.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Look, I'm willing to accept that DWS has probably put a thumb on the scales for Clinton now and again, but the real question is: has it made a real difference? Would Bernie Sanders have more delegates now if things had been otherwise? Let's say he would have done 10% better (and that's pretty generous) in terms of delegates if the DNC had been more even-handed. Clinton would still have a significant lead and everything would be the same. So I don't think focusing on the DNC really explains what's happening in this race. I think Clinton is just more popular with Democrats.

I don't disagree, I think Clinton would still be ahead if DWS and the DNC weren't helping her. I was just pointing out that denying the DNC is helping her is disingenuous. 

 

[TrackerNeil]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't disagree, I think Clinton would still be ahead if DWS and the DNC weren't helping her. I was just pointing out that denying the DNC is helping her is disingenuous. 

I'd need to see evidence, but, sure, it's plausible and even sounds likely. I think it also sounds meaningless, and part of the narrative that goes like this:

When Sanders wins states, he has momentum; when Clinton does it, she's simply relying on minority support. When Sanders shouts he's passionate; when Clinton shouts she's "not connecting well to voters." When Sanders wins three delegates it's a shocker; when Clinton wins seventy-three it's business as usual. I don't understand it, I really don't.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

 I don't understand it, I really don't.

You don't?  It's politics, everyone has their spin.  One thing that has been a little frustrating for me is that some Sanders supporters don't admit that they are spinning, as if he were "above the fray" because he is the more ideologically pure candidate. 

I feel like this campaign is really showing that while there is a significant portion of the Democratic party that really wants a firm shove to the left, there are also a lot of Democrats that either prefer a center-left candidate such as Clinton/Obama or don't think a true liberal candidate would win.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'd need to see evidence, but, sure, it's plausible and even sounds likely. I think it also sounds meaningless, and part of the narrative that goes like this:

When Sanders wins states, he has momentum; when Clinton does it, she's simply relying on minority support. When Sanders shouts he's passionate; when Clinton shouts she's "not connecting well to voters." When Sanders wins three delegates it's a shocker; when Clinton wins seventy-three it's business as usual. I don't understand it, I really don't.

I don't think you'd find it meaningless if you weren't a strong Clinton supporter.

And just to be clear, this is not a knock on HRC, it's on DWS.

[Kalbear]

Quote

unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.

What is wrong with this statement? It's certainly not meant to be applied to Sanders and has been stated as such several times. What it is for is for, well, dealing with people like Trump or like Ron Paul - people that might win some (especially in a plurality) but are unelectable in the general election due to...well, all sorts of things. 

Sanders isn't a grassroots activist, not by a long shot, and the establishment has understood that for a while. The idea that this is sort of bad is...well, again, look at the mess that the Republican party is in currently and ask whether or not they'd like to have all states be proportional and 15% of the delegates go to who the party decides.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

You don't?  It's politics, everyone has their spin.  One thing that has been a little frustrating for me is that some Sanders supporters don't admit that they are spinning, as if he were "above the fray" because he is the more ideologically pure candidate. 

What is beyond me is how liberals are doing this. I expect this kind of stuff from conservatives, but not from liberals. But then in this primary I have seen a good deal of conservative behavior from the left, so perhaps I should not be surprised. 

[Sullen]

12 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

What is beyond me is how liberals are doing this. I expect this kind of stuff from conservatives, but not from liberals. But then in this primary I have seen a good deal of conservative behavior from the left, so perhaps I should not be surprised. 

Everybody does it, all the time, liberal or conservative, Clinton or Sanders supporters.

It's not exclusive to a single candidate or party, it's a reality of modern politics.