US Election: To NY and Beyond

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, CBeck113 said:

And everyone here is fine with the notion that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will not only be leading our country but also representing it for the rest of the world?  I'm scared shitless that DT could be getting the keys to the world's largest nuclear arsenal, but for many that isn't an issue...I'm afraid that history will be repeating itself.

Trump has actually been into anti-proliferation efforts. Besides, nuclear disasters are bad for real estate. As to representing the US to the world... I've been reading up on Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State and I'm more or less convinced that she will be marginally worse than Obama. That is, she has generally pushed the more belligerent option and much of the time Obama agreed, but sometimes (like in the arguments over Syria), Obama chose not to interfere (see this long but interesting article for several instances of where they differ). Trump is unpredictable, but he is not necessarily worse.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

There are 580,000 registered Democrats in West Virginia, compared to 360,000 Republicans. 

Unless you think West Virginia is going to revert to the days when it'd vote for Jimmy Carter or Michael Dukakis over a Republican, that's a fair number of people who will cross-over between primary and general.

It was a joke. I doubt many identify as dixiecrats these days.

@Fez

WV is actually a semi-closed primary, so non-Democrats can vote as long as they're not a registered member of another party. 

[Fez]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

It was a joke. I doubt many identify as dixiecrats these days.

@Fez

WV is actually a semi-closed primary, so non-Democrats can vote as long as they're not a registered member of another party. 

Right. But extremely conservative Democrats can't vote in the Republican race, even though they all vote Republican in the general. And Nate Cohn's thesis is that those sorts of Democrats will vote for Sanders because of a primal hatred of all things Clinton; and he says there's evidence of that happened Kansas and parts of Florida, which were also closed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Right. But extremely conservative Democrats can't vote in the Republican race, even though they all vote Republican in the general. And Nate Cohn's thesis is that those sorts of Democrats will vote for Sanders because of a primal hatred of all things Clinton; and he says there's evidence of that happened Kansas and parts of Florida, which were also closed.

They'll vote for Sanders because of Clinton's stance on guns, full stop. Hell, in 2014 ALG campaigned for the Senate in KY by showing off how much she's a good shot.

[Weeping Sore]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

...Plus, while I'm sure most small Sanders donors will eventually donate to Clinton as the nominee...

I wouldn't bet on it. Though that might be the only significant concession Bernie could still have the leverage to extract from Clinton, that is, asking for a pledge to forgo super PAC funding in the general in exchange for access to his donor lists and urging his followers to support her.

[lokisnow]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They'll vote for Sanders because of Clinton's stance on guns, full stop. Hell, in 2014 ALG campaigned for the Senate in KY by showing off how much she's a good shot.

Ali G is now american, running for senate and trans? Why is this show not on HBO?

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well in all fairness I think Independents are less likely to vote in a primary, but I'm not for rules that prevent them from doing so if they feel like it. And as many other posters have said, most Independents vote consistently for one of the two major parties anyways, so why exclude them?

By insiders I mean party leaders at various levels who could have a large influence on the GOTV operations. They can wield more influence over a smaller, more ideologically consistent group of voters. However, of all the examples I listed, this one has the smallest effect.

Independents are excluded from primaries, but no one's stopping them from registering as Democrats or Republicans--there's no initiation. They can change as they like. However, I don't see why declared independents get to help choose a party's nominee. If you want to have a say in who runs as a Democrat, register as a Democrat, for crying out loud. 

I'm a Democrat in a closed-primary state, and GOTV efforts don't affect me very much. I either vote or I don't, and in that I doubt I'm much different from other Democrats. If you're claiming that it's easier for Democrats to contact Democrats to urge them to vote then I agree, but I don't see that as anything more than the benefits of belonging to a club of sorts. Those who belong get the benefits; those who choose to stand apart don't.

To address you question about "excluding" people, I don't see how exclusion is in this case bad. Pennsylvania is restricting Democratic primaries to Democrats, and Republican primaries to Republicans. I don't see how that is so bad.

[Robin Of House Hill]

 It is so sad to see one party wants to change nothing for the better and the other wants to make everything worse. so many people willing to settle for the lesser of two evils.

I won't vote for Clinton and it has very little to do with her stance on guns.  It has to do with her positions on TPP, NAFTA, Keystone XL, DOMA, DADT, Glass-Steagal, and fracking, not to mention her coziness with Wall St. big banks, big pharma, fossil fuel and Monsanto.  I have one thing in common with Clinton.  In 1964, we both supported Goldwater.  I evolved.  She didn't.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

 It is so sad to see one party wants to change nothing for the better and the other wants to make everything worse. so many people willing to settle for the lesser of two evils.

I won't vote for Clinton and it has very little to do with her stance on guns.  It has to do with her positions on TPP, NAFTA, Keystone XL, DOMA, DADT, Glass-Steagal, and fracking, not to mention her coziness with Wall St. big banks, big pharma, fossil fuel and Monsanto.  I have one thing in common with Clinton.  In 1964, we both supported Goldwater.  I evolved.  She didn't.

She's also the only candidate that has actually done anything for Trans rights. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

So it looks like I was right to say that Sanders should have dropped out weeks ago. Clinton's numbers are crashing, and these last couple of weeks have really taken a toll.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-won-new-york-but-her-image-is-underwater/2016/04/19/d1ff2f3c-0620-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html

Quote

Clinton’s image is at or near record lows among major demographic groups. Among men, she is at minus 40. Among women, she is at minus nine. Among whites, she is at minus 39. Among white women, she is at minus 25. Among white men, she is at minus 72. Her favorability among whites at this point in the election cycle is worse than President Obama’s ever has been, according to Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducted the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.

 

[Robin Of House Hill]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

She's also the only candidate that has actually done anything for Trans rights. 

Aside from changing passport regulations when she was SecState?

[lokisnow]

SCOTUS unanimously upheld arizona redistricting commission.

Quote

After the 2010 census, Arizona’s independent redistricting commission (Commission), comprising two Republicans, two Democrats, and one Independent, redrew Arizona’s legislative districts, with guidance from legal counsel, mapping specialists, a statistician, and a Voting Rights Act specialist. The initial plan had a maximum population deviation from absolute equality of districts of 4.07%, but the Commission adopted a revised plan with an 8.8% deviation on a 3-to-2 vote, with the Republican members dissenting. After the Department of Justice approved the revised plan as consistent with the Voting Rights Act, appellants filed suit, claiming that the plan’s population variations were inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge Federal District Court entered judgment for the Commission, concluding that the “deviations were primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act . . . even though partisanship played some role.”
Held: The District Court did not err in upholding Arizona’s redistricting plan. Pp. 3–11.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires States to “make an honest and good faith effort to construct [legislative] districts . . . as nearly of equal population as is practicable,” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 577, but mathematical perfection is not required. Deviations may be justified by “legitimate considerations,” id., at 579, including “traditional districting principles such as compactness [and] contiguity,” Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 647, as well as a state interest in maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions, Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315, 328, a competitive balance among political parties, Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735, 752, and, before Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. ___, compliance with §5 of the Voting Rights Act. It was proper for the Commission to proceed on the last basis here. In addition, “minor deviations from mathematical equality”—i.e., deviations “under 10%,” Brown v. Thomson, 462 U. S. 835, 842—do not, by themselves, “make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment [requiring] justification by the State,” Gaffney, supra, at
745. Because the deviation here is under 10%, appellants cannot rely upon the numbers to show a constitutional violation. Instead, they must show that it is more probable than not that the deviation reflects the predominance of illegitimate reapportionment factors rather than “legitimate considerations.” Pp. 3–5.
(b)
Appellants have failed to meet that burden here, where the record supports the District Court’s conclusion that the deviations predominantly reflected Commission efforts to achieve compliance with the Voting Rights Act, not to secure political advantage for the Democratic Party. To meet the Voting Rights Act’s nonretrogression requirement, a new plan, when compared to the current plan (benchmark plan), must not diminish the number of districts in which minority groups can “elect their preferred candidates of choice” (ability-to-elect districts). A State can obtain legal assurance that it has satisfied this requirement if it submits its proposed plan to the Justice Department and the Department does not object to the plan. The record shows that the Commission redrew the initial map to ensure that the plan had 10 ability-to-elect districts, the same number as the benchmark plan. But after a statistician reported that the Justice Department still might not agree with the plan, the Commission changed additional boundaries, causing District 8, a Republican leaning district, to become more politically competitive. Because this record well supports the District Court’s finding that the Commission was trying to comply with the Voting Rights Act, appellants have not shown that it is more probable than not that illegitimate considerations were the predominant motivation for the deviations. They have thus failed to show that the plan violates the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 5–9.
(c)
Appellants’ additional arguments are unpersuasive. While Arizona’s Democratic-leaning districts may be somewhat underpopulated and its Republican-leaning districts somewhat overpopulated,these variations may reflect only the tendency of Arizona’s 2010 minority populations to vote disproportionately for Democrats and thus can be explained by the Commission’s efforts to maintain at least 10 ability-to-elect districts. Cox v. Larios, 542 U. S. 947, in which the Court affirmed a District Court’s conclusion that a Georgia reapportionment plan violated the Equal Protection Clause where its deviation, though less than 10%, resulted from the use of illegitimate factors, is inapposite because appellants have not carried their burden of showing the use of illegitimate factors here. And because Shelby County was decided after Arizona’s plan was created, it has no bearing on the issue whether the State’s attempt to comply with the Voting Rights Act is a legitimate state interest. Pp. 9–11.
993 F. Supp. 2d 1042, affirmed.
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court

 

[Weeping Sore]

49 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Independents are excluded from primaries, but no one's stopping them from registering as Democrats or Republicans--there's no initiation. They can change as they like. However, I don't see why declared independents get to help choose a party's nominee. If you want to have a say in who runs as a Democrat, register as a Democrat, for crying out loud. 

We've got independents who almost always vote for the Democratic candidate in November but who haven't been interested enough to participate in a presidential primary in awhile. I mean their vote is good enough for you in November why not now? Just because somebody likes to vote Democratic doesn't mean they want to call themselves a Democrat, just as many who like to suck cock don't like to call themselves cocksuckers.

I mean I'm not talking about myself, I'm proud to be a registered Democratic cocksucker, but I think we should respect the rights of others to self-identify.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Independents are excluded from primaries, but no one's stopping them from registering as Democrats or Republicans--there's no initiation. They can change as they like. However, I don't see why declared independents get to help choose a party's nominee. If you want to have a say in who runs as a Democrat, register as a Democrat, for crying out loud. 

Then let them register at the doors when they go to vote. Or have them pledge to support the party's nominee in the general election, regardless of who they vote for in the primary. There is no need for the extra barrier of preregistration. 

52 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

To address you question about "excluding" people, I don't see how exclusion is in this case bad. Pennsylvania is restricting Democratic primaries to Democrats, and Republican primaries to Republicans. I don't see how that is so bad.

It is if you want everyone to have the opportunity to express their political desires. And since we live in a country where only two parties have any chance to be successful outside of the local level, I think it's a good thing to let Independents pick a side considering they likely lean towards that party anyways. Furthermore, the more people you exclude, especially when they largely pool in the middle of the electorate ideologically, the more partisan the parties become. 

Also, a lot of the arguments presented in this thread have similarities to Republican arguments for stronger voter ID laws. They set up additional barriers that disproportionately effect poor people. Here's a link to your state's registration process. For a poor person with little means it creates some noticeable burdens to register ahead of time. 

At the end of the day all I'm trying to say as that I want as many people as possible to be able to participate. A democracy is at it's strongest point when no one feels disenfranchised. 

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Weeping Sore said:

I wouldn't bet on it. Though that might be the only significant concession Bernie could still have the leverage to extract from Clinton, that is, asking for a pledge to forgo super PAC funding in the general in exchange for access to his donor lists and urging his followers to support her.

If that's the demand, Clinton should rightly tell him to fuck off. His donor list is important, but superPAC funding is even more important. Clinton already has her donors and no doubt will have access to DNC and OFA donor lists.

Furthermore, the exit polls from New York actually show Clinton supporters less comfortable with Sanders as nominee than Sanders supporters are with a Clinton nominee; in both cases though, vast majorities of both sides of the party are fine with either candidate winning.

ETA: As good as their music is, I doubt OAR has many donors.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Furthermore, the exit polls from New York actually show Clinton supporters less comfortable with Sanders as nominee than Sanders supporters are with a Clinton nominee; in both cases though, vast majorities of both sides of the party are fine with either candidate winning.

Link? The exit poll I saw showed Democrats viewing Sanders 20% more favorably than Clinton. This also goes against a lot of prior polling, which shows on average twice as many Sanders supporters saying they won't vote for Clinton (20-30% of Sanders supporters saying never for Clinton and roughly 15% of Clinton supporters saying never for Sanders).

[Kalbear]

31 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Aside from changing passport regulations when she was SecState?

And announcing that LGBT rights are human rights, yes. 

The idea that she hasn't evolved while you have is especially funny. Do you think she currently supports DOMA? Or DADT, given that she voted to repeal it? Do you think she currently supports the TPP deal? You have this image of who she was in the 90s and then claim she hasn't evolved, but ignore what her actual stated positions are. 

The Glass-Steagall thing I'll grant you, given that it's worthless now. She shockingly doesn't support worthless laws. 

Monsanto I have no idea what you're talking about. She isn't opposed to GMOs, just like almost every single scientist out there. If Sanders is opposed to GMOs then he's just as loopy as a antivaccer. 

[CBeck113]

@Altherion, @Mexal, & @GrapefruitPerrier - thanks for your answers.  I've been living in Germany for the past 25 years (Army, then met my wife and decided to stay), and have watched how the image of America has "lost its glance" over that period.  The reason is simple: the image caused by the president for his decision making and politics.  Bill was OK, George W. should have never been made president simply because he is not a leader (but was more promising than the alternatives - how could the Dems let Al Gore run?!?), and Obama was / is an extremely poor communicator, who strangely enough is relatively eloquant in the process.  For next year we have Clinton, who has experience but is a liar and will go back to the old methods of government, Trump....nope, sorry, just no, and Sanders, who is the only candidate with an open history and pretty solid plans (his dependance on getting money from the rich for his programms is like waiting for the tooth fairy), but no party support so he was screwed from the get-go, even if he could get the popular vote.  Is this really the best we can do?

[Fez]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Link? The exit poll I saw showed Democrats viewing Sanders 20% more favorably than Clinton. This also goes against a lot of prior polling, which shows on average twice as many Sanders supporters saying they won't vote for Clinton (20-30% of Sanders supporters saying never for Clinton and roughly 15% of Clinton supporters saying never for Sanders).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-primary-democratic-exit-polls.html

33% of Democrats said they were concerned or scared about a Clinton presidency, 38% of Democrats said they were concerned or scared about a Sanders presidency

3̶4̶%̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶D̶e̶m̶o̶c̶r̶a̶t̶s̶ ̶s̶a̶i̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶(̶1̶4̶%̶)̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶(̶2̶0̶%̶)̶ ̶v̶o̶t̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶C̶l̶i̶n̶t̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶s̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶m̶i̶n̶e̶e̶,̶ ̶4̶0̶%̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶D̶e̶m̶o̶c̶r̶a̶t̶s̶ ̶s̶a̶i̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶(̶1̶8̶%̶)̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶(̶2̶2̶%̶)̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶S̶a̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶m̶i̶n̶e̶e̶

14% of Democrats said they would not vote for Clinton if she was the nominee, while 18% of Democrats said they would not for Sanders if he was the nominee.

ETA: I have reading comprehension issue apparently.

[mormont]

18 minutes ago, Fez said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-primary-democratic-exit-polls.html

33% of Democrats said they were concerned or scared about a Clinton presidency, 38% of Democrats said they were concerned or scared about a Sanders presidency

34% of Democrats said they would not (14%) or probably would not (20%) vote for Clinton if she was the nominee, 40% of Democrats said they would not (18%) or probably would not (22%) for Sanders if he was the nominee

You've mislabeled that last stat: those should read 'probably would', not 'probably would not'.