2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

[BookWyrm2]

5 minutes ago, alguien said:

I find the Sanders supporters' rationale that democrats should ignore the popular vote because he's been winning the caucuses to be... ironic to say the least.

Caucuses do more to suppress voter turnout than anything else. They're utter bullshit garbage. (can you tell I'm still annoyed about my caucus experience?) 

Just see Nebraska, where Clinton recently won the doesn't-count popular vote after losing the caucus earlier. 

Are you referring to me? I didn't say I who I supported if so. 

My point's that you can't say Clinton's ahead by so many popular votes if we aren't counting them.

I agree that caucuses are garbage. I can only assume you brought that up because you think I'm trying to justify something I'm not. I do actually think voter suppression is bad, even when it happens to people I disagree with.

Sorry to hear about the caucus experience though. I'd be annoyed too if I had to do one

[Sir Thursday]

19 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I make no such arguments. I say that it is perfectly reasonable for a state to limit voting in a party primary to those who declare they are members of that party. 

I feel as though these discussions turn on the assumption "more voting = more good." We vote for lots of things, but that doesn't necessarily improve them. In Pennsylvania we elect our judges, but I am far from certain that's the best system. So sometimes more voting is better, and sometimes it isn't.

There's the question of whether or not a vote should be held about something, but to me that's a separate issue. Once it has been decided that a vote should be held, it seems to me that "more eligible voters voting = more good" does hold true. Crucially this is different from "more voting = more good" in that you need to define eligibility criteria.

Looking at it this way does turn up a difference between the people pushing for voter registration in the primary and people pushing for voter registration in the general. In the former case, the question of "Who is eligible to vote?" is disputed. In the latter case, there is no question of who is eligible (that is enshrined in law) but rather "What should constitute proof of eligibility?" Whether or not that distinction is sufficient to justify being for one but against the other is a matter of personal taste :P.

ST

[TrackerNeil]

11 minutes ago, Sir Thursday said:

There's the question of whether or not a vote should be held about something, but to me that's a separate issue. Once it has been decided that a vote should be held, it seems to me that "more eligible voters voting = more good" does hold true. Crucially this is different from "more voting = more good" in that you need to define eligibility criteria.

Depends on the situation. I could argue that it's wrong not to let voters cast ballots in BOTH primaries; after all, if independents can influence a party's choice of nominees, why should that choice be limited to just one party? Maybe people should be able to vote in every single party primary. More voting, more good.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I make no such arguments. I say that it is perfectly reasonable for a state to limit voting in a party primary to those who declare they are members of that party. 

I'm not saying you did. I was showing you the similarities. And for what it's worth I agree if they can register with the party at the door. I'm willing to accept that a few Republicans might be trying to game the system in exchange for people like @Bonesy not getting turned away.

21 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I feel as though these discussions turn on the assumption "more voting = more good." We vote for lots of things, but that doesn't necessarily improve them. In Pennsylvania we elect our judges, but I am far from certain that's the best system. So sometimes more voting is better, and sometimes it isn't.

It can be better in some situations and worse in others. The further down the ballot the voting is the more uninformed the average voter will be. But at the end of the day I want people to have the opportunity to participate and have their voices heard, so removing burdensome rules makes perfect sense to me. 

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Because again, the claim that you originally made. The claim that I took issue with and have taken the time to respond to - is that there is something wrong with a Sanders supporter refusing to vote for Clinton in the general because it won't move Clinton or the Democrats farther to the left. And the reality is - it's irrelevant. An individual's vote is irrelevant in pulling either Clinton or the party as a whole to the left. And so that's just not a legitimate basis upon which to criticize a person for their decision to vote for Hillary or not. 

Bullshit.  If someone claims that chiropractic cures cancer, I can say, with a high degree of certainty, that that statement is wrong.  The efficacy of other purported cures have no effect on weather or not chiropractic does cure cancer.  So too with those who claim that voting for Sanders will move the party to the left.  I can show pretty well that this is most likely false.  Your claim about other candidates moving the party in any direction have no effect on that statement.  The statement that "a write in vote for Sanders will help move the party to the left" is, barring heretofore unheard of circumstances, still just wrong.

If someone says A is true, and it isn't then B being true or false doesn't change the truth of A.  

[alguien]

29 minutes ago, BookWyrm2 said:

Are you referring to me? I didn't say I who I supported if so. 

My point's that you can't say Clinton's ahead by so many popular votes if we aren't counting them.

I agree that caucuses are garbage. I can only assume you brought that up because you think I'm trying to justify something I'm not. I do actually think voter suppression is bad, even when it happens to people I disagree with.

Sorry to hear about the caucus experience though. I'd be annoyed too if I had to do one

Ah, I see. Gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood you.

I believe if not for caucuses, Clinton would be ahead by even more votes. 

And thanks. Caucuses are a terrible, dated vestigal malformation of electoral process that should be excised. I could see how, say 30 years ago, they could have been a helpful tool to inform the voting populace. But we have this thing called the internet now, and it's remarkably easy to find politicians' stances and voting records with a few clicks. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

17 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Bullshit.  If someone claims that chiropractic cures cancer, I can say, with a high degree of certainty, that that statement is wrong.  The efficacy of other purported cures have no effect on weather or not chiropractic does cure cancer.  So too with those who claim that voting for Sanders will move the party to the left.  I can show pretty well that this is most likely false.  Your claim about other candidates moving the party in any direction have no effect on that statement.  The statement that "a write in vote for Sanders will help move the party to the left" is, barring heretofore unheard of circumstances, still just wrong.

If someone says A is true, and it isn't then B being true or false doesn't change the truth of A.  

I don't even know what you are responding to. Because you are not addressing any claims that I've actually made. 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh come on:

"Some Republicans might vote in the Democratic Primary, so we need extra barriers that will prevent many more people who want to participate earnestly from voting."

"Some people might cheat in the General Election, so we need extra barriers that will prevent many more people who want to participate earnestly from voting."

They're both bogeyman arguments.

kal provided quite a lot of evidence in these threads that the New York primary is closed in direct reaction to prior organized Republican meddling in the democrat primary elections to advance weak candidates to the general election. It is not a bogeyman argument, organized opposition sabotaging one's party is why we have closed primaries in the first place.

[BloodRider]

12 hours ago, BookWyrm2 said:

Merely counting the number of "registered Democrats" voting doesn't isolate the number of people involved in totality (not even close - consider that tonight was Sanders' first closed primary victory).

Would "registered Democrats" include someone like Bonesy? Myself? I think that this calculation is much more complicated than you're giving it credit for. There's a reason why Bernie does so well in open primaries and caucuses, to only count the popular vote among registered Democrats also seems like a huge simplification

Isn't the point more that even if everyone who could vote (Dems and Independents), voted for Sanders - to a person - he STILL would not have the lead in the popular vote.  Grouse about Caucuses all you want, and I'll back you up, but Sanders is still losing the popular vote - even if you make extremely unrealistic and biased assumptions about voting patterns if a caucus were actually a primary.  (Like everyone everyone who could vote would vote for Sanders.)

That said, your question did lead to a very interesting sidebar discussion.....

[lokisnow]

13 hours ago, Bonesy said:

What else does your programming tell you?

FTR, I stated that Clinton has won the most states, the most pledged delegates, the most super-delegates, and the most votes overall:

my source was this wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Note the chart at the top, Sanders needs 847 of 957 remaining pledged delegates to achieve a majority of pledged delegates. 

Note the chart at the top, Sanders has won 21 states Clinton has won 27 states

Note the chart at the top, Clinton has won the super delegates as well.

For the total popular vote count, I use this source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Note the top line number, Clinton has earned 12,971,797 votes and Sanders has earned 9,924,944 votes.

This is what the numbers declare to be the case, but you are correct, it is a form of programming, being able to process numbers.

Donald Trump, while running unopposed, is not earning the percentages Bernie Sanders needs to earn those 847 pledged delegates, this is why I'm saying he has effectively been mathematically eliminated, because even unopposed candidates cannot earn the percentages necessary for Bernie Sanders to earn a majority of pledged delegates.

 

 

[lokisnow]

13 hours ago, BookWyrm2 said:

Isn't it a little unfair to refer to the popular vote when some of his biggest victories have occurred where voting goes unreported (i.e. caucuses)? I keep seeing this line and yet it seems to be an apples to oranges comparison

I think Caucuses are a terrible system that need to be completely eliminated (except for Iowa because "tradition" and because New Hampshire would start an arms race in being "first" if they had to compete with an Iowa primary) because caucuses are a system that actively and systematically disenfranchises nearly the entire electorate. I am glad Bernie Sanders has won some caucuses, but caucuses as a system need to die. And I am not sure that it is an argument in Sanders' favor that he has won most of his victories only within non-transparent systems which according to you most of the voting is unreported. That isn't a good look, in my opinion.

[lokisnow]

4 hours ago, Fez said:

It'll be bad, but not nearly that bad. After this year, at the absolute worst Senate Democrats have 48 seats, and that's assuming a Trump landslide. If its a Clinton landslide, they could have as many as 55 seats (or more, if we start fantasizing about Democrats taking Georgia and the SCOTUS fight taking out Grassley in Iowa; but let's ignore that for now). I think the most likely result is around 52 seats.

The 2018 senate map is bad, but not lose 12 seats bad. Remember, even in 2014 Democrats "only" lost 9 seats, in 2010 it was 6 seats. In 2018, there looks to be 5 very tough to hold seats, another 5 seats in swing seats that could be tough. And on the flip side, only one Republican seat that they could maybe take; Heller in Nevada.

I'm not ready to say Democrats are going to lose all 10 of those seats. And if they were in the position where losing 10 seats would put them sub-40, that'd be because Trump won in 2016. If that's the case, its likely that 2018 will end up being a very good year for Democrats instead.

 

The President is far more than the head of their party, but a presidential nominee is just the head of their party. They only become more than that if they win the general election.

I absolutely believe a DWS led DNC will capably lose 12 senate seats in 2018. That doesn't sound like an outlier outcome to me, for DWS that seems more like a median outcome.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

kal provided quite a lot of evidence in these threads that the New York primary is closed in direct reaction to prior organized Republican meddling in the democrat primary elections to advance weak candidates to the general election. It is not a bogeyman argument, organized opposition sabotaging one's party is why we have closed primaries in the first place.

Yeah, a hundred years ago when party machines mattered:

Quote

New York state Board of Elections spokesman John Conklin said the long lead time to switch party registration has been in effect for at least a century and is intended to keep members of one party from manipulating the outcome of the other party's primary.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-new-york-primary-20160417-story.html

Not really relevant anymore. So here in 2016, it is a bogeyman argument. And surprise surprise, New York turn out is terrible:

Quote

This week, as a competitive presidential primary arrived in New York for the first time in decades, only 19.7 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot Tuesday, according to data from the Election Project, making New York turnout second-lowest for the presidential primary so far.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/state/6295-there-is-a-long-list-of-voting-reforms-new-york-can-pass

http://www.thenation.com/article/new-york-had-the-second-lowest-voter-turnout-so-far-this-election-season/

 

[BookWyrm2]

46 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I think Caucuses are a terrible system that need to be completely eliminated (except for Iowa because "tradition" and because New Hampshire would start an arms race in being "first" if they had to compete with an Iowa primary) because caucuses are a system that actively and systematically disenfranchises nearly the entire electorate. I am glad Bernie Sanders has won some caucuses, but caucuses as a system need to die. And I am not sure that it is an argument in Sanders' favor that he has won most of his victories only within non-transparent systems which according to you most of the voting is unreported. That isn't a good look, in my opinion.

Please see the first post on this page.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

Fair. Sorry, I think I got a little off-track there. I just don't see how allowing someone registered as independent or unaffiliated or whatever to vote in the primary of their choosing is an unreasonable burden either. 

Long story short, it's not at all unreasonable, I just remain unconvinced why it should be necessary 

So you're opposed to all the caucuses that Sanders won? Most of them not only are closed, they force you to affirm that you are a registered democrat and will be supporting the Democrat party. 

[Swordfish]

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

Which is a perfectly good option. However, some who are complaining about "closed primaries" (not necessarily yourself) seem to think that they should be able to "infiltrate" a party without actually registering as a member of it, even on election day! That seems pretty silly to me.

 

3 hours ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

Ok, so what's to stop a concerted group of republicans from simply changing registration and "infiltrating" a democrat primary? That has been the only "why" argument I've heard in favor of closed primaries. The rest has been "why not?"

 

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is there any evidence that this actually happens regulatory?

And regardless, if such an operation were to exist and have success it would require extensive planning and coordination, so having to register in advance wouldn't be much of a deterrent. And those people would have no problem with lying about which party they associate themselves with.

 

'Primary infiltration' is the lefts version of 'Voter Fraud'.

[Kalbear]

 

Quote

 

"Some Republicans might vote in the Democratic Primary, so we need extra barriers that will prevent many more people who want to participate earnestly from voting."

"Some people might cheat in the General Election, so we need extra barriers that will prevent many more people who want to participate earnestly from voting."

They're both bogeyman arguments.

 

Except...they're not. Aside from the historical arguments, we have actual campaigns from people like Limbaugh who have encouraged people to vote for the other side. You have the reports from West Virginia of people who are planning on voting for Trump who are voting for Sanders in the dem primary because they can. You have exit polls of people who typically vote one way voting on the other side. You have Democrats openly advocating and putting out attack ads in the primary for their primary opponents so that they can have an easier time. We have John Scalzi specifically stating how he's going to vote in both primaries and telling people the easiest way to do so. 

I get that you think that these are equivalent, but you're wrong. One is a pretty common strategy in politics and is frequently used in states that have open primaries - used openly enough that people talk about doing it openly. The other is something that so rarely happens that it's almost impossible to find actual evidence. It's not a bogeyman when people advocate for doing it and talk about how best to do it.

[snake]

I don't know if anyone has already posted this but this obituary is very funny. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with counting out non-Democrats when one is figuring out who Democrats want to lead them. 

One of the very touchstones of the Sanders campaign is the legitimacy of the political system. We're hearing time and time again from Sanders' people that there's too much money in politics, that closed primaries are unjust, there was voter fraud, that the DNC has a thumb on the scales, etc. These are all criticisms of the legitimacy of the very process in which Sanders is now engaged, and I don't think that can reasonably be denied.

(It's ironic, though, that Bernie wants the superdelegates, who presumably are part of this corrupt system, to overrule the pledged delegates and make him the nominee. Seems like "establishment for me, but not for thee" reasoning.)

What I think is more useful now than griping is for the Sanders folks to form a movement that will hold Clinton accountable for her promises if she should become president, and that will make it more likely that a Sanders-style candidate will win the next Democratic primary. Or, if they like, they can join Donald Trump and paint Clinton as venal and corrupt as the system that "anointed" her. It's up to them.

Would you care to speculate why LoB was turned away from the polls as an "indepenent" when he had confirmation of his democratic regiatration?

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Would you care to speculate why LoB was turned away from the polls as an "indepenent" when he had confirmation of his democratic regiatration?

Not really, no. There are a multitude of reasons why this might have happened, that range from the honest misunderstanding to the outright illegal. I'm not going out on that limb, Ser Scot.