2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I would agree.

EDITED TO ADD: Let me address the comparison you are making. Closed primaries do prevent gaming the system, not completely, but they make it harder. Voter ID laws do nothing to prevent widespread fraud, or any kind of fraud except tiny amounts that don't swing elections. There's the difference.

The problem though is the assumption that there are wide spread efforts to game the system. People like to talk about it, but there really isn't any empirical data to suggest that it's true, at least in any significant way. However, we do have very real data showing that millions of people who want to participate are being turned away because there are additional and arguably unnecessary barriers preventing them from doing so.

The above could apply to voter I.D. laws and closed primary rules. That's why I made the comparison. The voter I.D. laws are worse, and there isn't a constitutional right to vote in the primaries, but there are philosophical overlaps between the two arguments.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, you know that idea that Sanders isn't going to do anything to jeopardize a Trump loss? Apparently his campaign is saying 'fuck that noise'. 

Quote

 

Advisers to Mr. Sanders said on Wednesday that he was newly resolved to remain in the race, seeing an aggressive campaign as his only chance to pressure Democrats into making fundamental changes to how presidential primaries and debates are held in the future. They said he also held out hope of capitalizing on any late stumbles by Mrs. Clinton or any damage to her candidacy, whether by scandal or by the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

After sounding subdued if not downbeat about the race for weeks, Mr. Sanders resumed a combative posture against Mrs. Clinton, demanding on Wednesday that she debate him before the June 7 primary in California and highlighting anew what he asserted were her weaknesses against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Sanders, his advisers said, has been buoyed by a stream of polls showing him beating Mr. Trump by larger margins than Mrs. Clinton in some battleground states, and by his belief that an upset victory in California could have a psychological impact on convention delegates who already have doubts about Mrs. Clinton.
....
While Mr. Sanders says he does not want Mr. Trump to win in November, his advisers and allies say he is willing to do some harm to Mrs. Clinton in the shorter term if it means he can capture a majority of the 475 pledged delegates at stake in California and arrive at the Philadelphia convention with maximum political power.

 

 

[lokisnow]

I do not think Clinton is the lesser of two evils. I do not think she is evil at all.

I think she is a skilled and gifted public servant who has a good vision for the country. 

Additionally important to me, Clinton has a history as a stalwart representative of my preferred party. That means I trust her far more than the other ten candidates on the primary ballot.

I mailed in my ballot for California today and happily and proudly voted for Clinton.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I would agree.

EDITED TO ADD: Let me address the comparison you are making. Closed primaries do prevent gaming the system, not completely, but they make it harder. Voter ID laws do nothing to prevent widespread fraud, or any kind of fraud except tiny amounts that don't swing elections. There's the difference.

Are you suggesting here that 'infiltration' swings elections?  I'd love to see some data on this.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The problem though is the assumption that there are wide spread efforts to game the system. People like to talk about it, but there really isn't any empirical data to suggest that it's true, at least in any significant way. However, we do have very real data showing that millions of people who want to participate are being turned away because there are additional and arguably unnecessary barriers preventing them from doing so.

The above could apply to voter I.D. laws and closed primary rules. That's why I made the comparison. The voter I.D. laws are worse, and there isn't a constitutional right to vote in the primaries, but there are philosophical overlaps between the two arguments.

Exactly.

[TerraPrime]

Any voting system can be gamed, whether it's closed or open primary or a caucus. It's just a matter of who's gaming it and what types of manipulation are feasible. Do people really want to find a perfect primary system?

 

 

On a more general note, I am just tired of hearing people say "if you want more voter participation, you should find some better candidates, so don't blame me for not caring."

That's just so immature. There are tasks in this world that need doing, and we need to do these tasks whether we enjoy them or not. For your own home, that's taking out the trash and scrubbing the toilet. For a democracy, that's keeping informed and then going to vote. You're not enthused by the candidates? Well fuck you. Go keep up with the news and vote anyway. Democracy doesn't work if people only participate in it when it's fun and exciting. That's not what Democracy is - that's what entertainment is. Which is why we are seeing Trump as the GOP front-runner. If we ever wonder why our politics feel like a Roman gladiator shit show, look no further than the self-indulgent justification of the politically apathetic crowd.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Outside of 1968, when RFK was assassinated and couldn't be nominated, when was the last time, if ever, that the Democratic Party made someone the Presidential nominee who failed to win the California primary? If I were a Clinton superdelegate and this went to a open convention I would have serious concerns about my candidate if they couldn't carry Cali in the party primary. That would be pretty difficult to ignore or explain away.

[TerraPrime]

5 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Outside of 1968, when RFK was assassinated and couldn't be nominated, when was the last time, if ever, that the Democratic Party made someone the Presidential nominee who failed to win the California primary? If I were a Clinton superdelegate and this went to a open convention I would have serious concerns about my candidate if they couldn't carry Cali in the party primary. That would be pretty difficult to ignore or explain away.

Not that I think Clinton will lose CA in any scenario, but arbitrary standard is arbitrary. Has the Demcoratic party nominated anyone who hasn't kissed a puppy's face on the second Tuesday following the Eastern Orthodox Easter? One does wonder.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, TerraPrime said:

Not that I think Clinton will lose CA in any scenario, but arbitrary standard is arbitrary. Has the Demcoratic party nominated anyone who hasn't kissed a puppy's face on the second Tuesday following the Eastern Orthodox Easter? One does wonder.

Obama?

[TrackerNeil]

58 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Are you suggesting here that 'infiltration' swings elections?  I'd love to see some data on this.

I am not, no.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, you know that idea that Sanders isn't going to do anything to jeopardize a Trump loss? Apparently his campaign is saying 'fuck that noise'. 

When one of your senior advisers says, "We have to put the blinders on", you know the campaign is trouble.

[Maithanet]

42 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Outside of 1968, when RFK was assassinated and couldn't be nominated, when was the last time, if ever, that the Democratic Party made someone the Presidential nominee who failed to win the California primary? If I were a Clinton superdelegate and this went to a open convention I would have serious concerns about my candidate if they couldn't carry Cali in the party primary. That would be pretty difficult to ignore or explain away.

Clinton won California in 2008 and it didn't grant her the nomination.  Nor did it convince the superdelegates that there were "serious concerns" about Obama. 

Why would losing California by 52-48 indicate that Clinton cannot win the general?  Why would Clinton winning 52-48 indicate that she will?  Why should a small swing in California voters mean more than the voters in all the other states that voted for Clinton? 

[Myshkin]

41 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Outside of 1968, when RFK was assassinated and couldn't be nominated, when was the last time, if ever, that the Democratic Party made someone the Presidential nominee who failed to win the California primary? If I were a Clinton superdelegate and this went to a open convention I would have serious concerns about my candidate if they couldn't carry Cali in the party primary. That would be pretty difficult to ignore or explain away.

California is that last thing Superdelegates should be worried about. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee she'll win Ca, if Sanders is the Democratc nominee he'll win Ca, if a dead fish is the Democratic nominee it'll win Ca. The idea that a Sanders victory in California will motivate the supers to switch to Bernie is just wishful thinking.

[Swordfish]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

I am not, no.

 

All righty.

So your argument is different from the voter fraud argument because...  Reasons.

 

Got it.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Clinton won California in 2008 and it didn't grant her the nomination.  Nor did it convince the superdelegates that there were "serious concerns" about Obama. 

So, other than the most recent democratic primary, it's like NEVER EVER HAPPENED. 

(never mind that the reason it hasn't happened is because candidates when they couldn't reasonably win bowed the fuck out way earlier). 

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Why would losing California by 52-48 indicate that Clinton cannot win the general?  Why would Clinton winning 52-48 indicate that she will?  Why should a small swing in California voters mean more than the voters in all the other states that voted for Clinton? 

Because the voters were suppressed, and chemtrails, and DWS!

[Rorshach]

25 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

California is that last thing Superdelegates should be worried about. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee she'll win Ca, if Sanders is the Democratc nominee he'll win Ca, if a dead fish is the Democratic nominee it'll win Ca. The idea that a Sanders victory in California will motivate the supers to switch to Bernie is just wishful thinking.

Why doesn't the dead fish have any decent ground game?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Rorshach said:

Why doesn't the dead fish have any decent ground game?

The sex scandal really hurt dead fish's campaign. 

[Rorshach]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The sex scandal really hurt dead fish's campaign. 

It really should have blamed that on Trump. Or Cruz. Or, better yet, the two of them together. 

Inspid media handlers!

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The sex scandal really hurt dead fish's campaign. 

Not to mention 'sardinegate'.

[TrackerNeil]

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because the voters were suppressed, and chemtrails, and DWS!

You really could make Sanders Conspiracy Bingo. Add in "closed primary" and "media blackout" too.

[Kalbear]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

You really could make Sanders Conspiracy Bingo. Add in "closed primary" and "media blackout" too.

Independent voters, break up the banks, Wall Street Cronies. YOU WIN

[TerraPrime]

To be fair,  "media blackout" is not entirely wrong. The mainstream media do indeed make poor reporting choices that do not reflect the reality. Now where the Sanders supporters got wrong is that they take this to be a conspiracy controlled by Clinton to stymie Sanders. That's the conspiracy crazy part, not the fact that there's a bias in the media reporting.