2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Clinton will face a mini blackout herself in the general, as Trump swallows up all the media coverage. 

32 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

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

Inspid media handlers!

It's crazy the scandal didn't have the same effect on those two as it did on poor dead fish.

33 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Not to mention 'sardinegate'.

Hahaha

[mormont]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

 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.

It'd be pretty easy to explain away. Clinton is the presumptive nominee at this point. She has a lead that even losing California won't seriously dent. Enthusiasm among her supporters is therefore low because they presume she will win and that they don't even need to turn out for their candidate to carry the day. Meanwhile, Sanders' supporters are highly motivated because people keep telling them that narrow victories in a proportional contest in which he is miles behind are really important for 'momentum' or tactical reasons or psychological reasons or just because they are.

So, there's your explanation for a narrow Sanders Cali win. And it doesn't look any more persuasive than 'some opinion polls show we might win a slightly larger victory with Sanders', as a means of persuading superdelegates to overturn the result of the pledged delegates.

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours 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'. 

 

I'm starting to get pretty fed up with this dude, he's wasting peoples' money and time at this point.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The sex scandal really hurt dead fish's campaign. 

I thought the refusal to release those tax returns were what sunk it.

[Red Hermit]

I preferred Sanders to Clinton but he is starting to get on my nerves by dragging out this fight.  Stopping Trump and being able to determine upcoming Supreme Court nominations should be top priority.

[Myshkin]

4 hours ago, Rorshach said:

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

Inspid media handlers!

The only reason Trump and Cruz skated on Sardinegate while Dead Fish took all the heat is that the fish, due in part to being dead, was unable to get out in front of the scandal. Trump and Cruz very cynically used Dead Fish's deadness to their advantage.

Also, why are people acting as if the sex scandal and Sardinegate are two different incidents?

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

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.

By my lights, Bernie Sanders has gotten tons of press, and he'll get more before he's done. The media love a horse race, so they've been following him pretty closely for the last six months. We can only wish there were a blackout.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I'm starting to get pretty fed up with this dude, he's wasting peoples' money and time at this point.

Last I saw Sanders fundraising numbers had dropped like a stone. Despite all the furore, I think even his supporters mostly think it's over. It's only the real diehards still holding out.

[TrackerNeil]

14 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Last I saw Sanders fundraising numbers had dropped like a stone. Despite all the furore, I think even his supporters mostly think it's over. It's only the real diehards still holding out.

That does seem likely, but those few supporters make a LOT of noise, don't they? My goodness...the conspiracy theories I am hearing! If this election has taught me anything, it's that liberals are as susceptible to craziness as conservatives--and often the same type!

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

That does seem likely, but those few supporters make a LOT of noise, don't they? My goodness...the conspiracy theories I am hearing! If this election has taught me anything, it's that liberals are as susceptible to craziness as conservatives--and often the same type!

Yep, that's a really good lesson, IMO. Cranks and zealots are not specifically wedded to some specific ideology - only that they have an ideology and that being pure and moral is more important than being rational and making critical choices. They'll say 'never' over and over because there exists no compromise, and that's what they want - simple black and white solutions with them on the side of Good. 

We should have seen this with the hippie liberals in California who also support anti-vaccing, but we're now seeing it in a bigger way. Everyone's susceptible to it. Some more than others.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-senate-democrats-223336

Bit player Sanders poised to become Senate force

But Democrats warn he could blow his newfound clout if he doesn't move to unite the party soon.

 

[Altherion]

That's an awful lot of "diehard" supporters for Sanders to decisively win Oregon and very nearly tie Kentucky.

General elections polls update: Trump's polling numbers continue to improve. There are now no polls in the past two weeks which have Clinton leading by more than by more than +6 (see Huffington Post, RealClearPolitics). Huffington Post now has the average at Clinton +2 and RealClearPolitics has it at Clinton +3. There are even a couple of polls which have Trump leading, although as certain people on this board will undoubtedly make hay of, they are from Republican-leaning sources: Fox has Trump +3 and Rasmussen has Trump +5.

[Myshkin]

As Nate Silver correctly predicted (though it's just common sense) Trump's numbers are going up because he is now the Repulican nominee in all but name. Expect to see a similar rise in Clinton's numbers after June 7th.

[Altherion]

Possibly, but Clinton is already the Democratic nominee in all but name. Barring a mind-control machine or something of the sort, there is no way she can lose either the pledged delegate race or real one with the superdelegates. This is what makes the Sanders victories strange -- usually, only a few people will vote for the side which has obviously lost.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Possibly, but Clinton is already the Democratic nominee in all but name. Barring a mind-control machine or something of the sort, there is no way she can lose either the pledged delegate race or real one with the superdelegates. This is what makes the Sanders victories strange -- usually, only a few people will vote for the side which has obviously lost.

Didn't stop Clinton winning the last few primaries against Obama in 2008.

[Myshkin]

There are no candidates other than Trump on the Rep side, while there is still a candidate other than Clinton on the Dem side. This is an important difference. Non-Trump Reps have been forced to reconcile themselves to the fact that their chosen candidate(s) will not be the nominee; non-Clinton Dems have not. Once Sanders is officially out of the race people will begin reevaluating and Clinton will see a similar bump to the one Trump is currently enjoying.

[Jace, Extat]

18 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Possibly, but Clinton is already the Democratic nominee in all but name. Barring a mind-control machine or something of the sort, there is no way she can lose either the pledged delegate race or real one with the superdelegates. This is what makes the Sanders victories strange -- usually, only a few people will vote for the side which has obviously lost.

Quite the opposite, I would think. Why bother getting out for your gal if she's already wrapped it up. Meanwhile on the other side you have the 'protest voters' and idealists who think a miracle will occur.

[Shryke]

8 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Quite the opposite, I would think. Why bother getting out for your gal if she's already wrapped it up. Meanwhile on the other side you have the 'protest voters' and idealists who think a miracle will occur.

Which we've seen throughout the campaign as turnout has been generally low and places with lower participation generally savouring Sanders.

As much as the impression one gets seems to indicate a tight race with lots of enthusiasm, Democrats generally aren't that riled up about this primary.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Didn't stop Clinton winning the last few primaries against Obama in 2008.

Also note that Trump is winning primaries with massively less turnout than it was earlier. Clinton and Sanders are still having record turnouts, beaten only by 2008. They're still campaigning (Trump is not), they're still putting out ads in some ways (though Clinton's are almost entirely about attacking Trump at this point). 

[TrackerNeil]

8 hours ago, Myshkin said:

There are no candidates other than Trump on the Rep side, while there is still a candidate other than Clinton on the Dem side. This is an important difference. Non-Trump Reps have been forced to reconcile themselves to the fact that their chosen candidate(s) will not be the nominee; non-Clinton Dems have not. Once Sanders is officially out of the race people will begin reevaluating and Clinton will see a similar bump to the one Trump is currently enjoying.

Yep. And despite claims of "blackouts", the media are still intensely covering Sanders and his people. 

With these Bernie-or-Bust folks, I feel like that old man in a horror movie, who's trying to warn the soon-to-be victims. "Sixteen years ago they said there was no difference between the candidates, and look what happened! Don't make the same mistake!" Like that old man, those of us issuing warnings now are being ignored. It's just bananas.

[The Marquis de Leech]

10 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

With these Bernie-or-Bust folks, I feel like that old man in a horror movie, who's trying to warn the soon-to-be victims. "Sixteen years ago they said there was no difference between the candidates, and look what happened! Don't make the same mistake!" Like that old man, those of us issuing warnings now are being ignored. It's just bananas.

The one point of difference is that in 2000, George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" - basically, his line was "you can have all the good stuff of the Clinton years, without the scandals - and I'm nicer and funnier than Al Gore. Have a beer with me!". Trump in 2016 is running more as a "burn everything" kind of guy.

This actually means it's even more bizarre than 2000, since in 2000 you could (if you were lazy) not see much difference between the candidates. In 2016, anyone who can't see a difference between Trump and Clinton is willfully blind to a criminal degree.