2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

[TrackerNeil]

51 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

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.

What I often hear from BoBs is that maybe it's best if Trump breaks the nation, so that the Sanders revolution will rise from the wreckage. To me, that translates to, "If things get shitty enough, somehow things will get better." That's not a plan but a fantasy. It's also incredibly privileged and indifferent, because some of us will suffer far more than others.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 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.

Yeah I have to agree. I've always been a fan of his even though I didn't support his bid for the presidency, but he is really doing serious damage to Hillary now.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What is "sardinegate"?  I just googled it and got this thread.

[Rorshach]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What is "sardinegate"?  I just googled it and got this thread.

See? This is where Dead Fish should have his/her media team, ready to pin the whole shebang on Trump. Or Sanders. 

What do we get? Scilence. And don't give me that "well, he/she's dead"-excuse!

[Fez]

18 hours 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.

It won't switch anyone. But I could easily Sanders actually staying into the convention anyway at this point if he won California. 

 

10 hours 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.

Sanders has done a very good job of convincing many of his supporters that he's still in it. He's also been attacking the process itself as delegitimate, which is worrying because it makes party unity harder in the end but also makes it easier for his supporters to stick with him.

As for general election numbers, the most recent poll of Sanders supporters found that right now only 55% would vote for Clinton, 15% would vote for Trump, and 30% don't know. That will improve dramatically within weeks of whenever Sanders concedes; unless, potentially, he fights at the convention. Once that improves, Clinton's general election numbers will improve as well. The main reason Sanders polls so much better against Trump is that nearly all of Clinton's supporters say they would vote for Sanders instead of Trump.

[The Mance]

14 hours ago, Red Hermit said:

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.

Yeah, this.

 

I've had a Feel the Bern magnet on my truck since last summer.  I was pretty excited early on by his crazy haired rhetoric*.  And while I never really believed he would win the nom, I at least recognized his potential to move the conversation leftward.  

 

But lately I feel like, in our current political climate, and with the make-up of our legislative bodies, there is a line, passed which no increasingly progressive policies will cross.  And that Clinton is at least sufficiently liberal to push policy right up to that line and maybe over it a bit here and there.  And I don't think having a (even only arguably) more progressive president is going to move that line, or get us any closer to it.  And, actually, a more established figure in the white house may even be able to do more in terms of bargaining, and coalition forming, or just general political brow-beating than an outsider would.

 

In any case, I now have a Clinton 2016 sticker emblazoned over my FtB magnet.  Hopefully people will get the message that while I was once a proud Bernie supporter, I now recognize that his chance at the nom is over and its time to get behind Clinton as the Dem candidate, like a grown up.

 

 

*and Feel the Bern may well be the best campaign slogan in the history of ever. 

[Weeping Sore]

I think at this point there's no way Bernie drops out before all the primary votes are counted, but it's very likely he concedes before the convention rather than engaging in a futile fight for superdelegate support on the convention floor. Clinton will get a 2-3% bump after he endorses her, the dead-enders will be negligible and she's going to win an unenthusiastic landslide in November.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah I have to agree. I've always been a fan of his even though I didn't support his bid for the presidency, but he is really doing serious damage to Hillary now.

I was doing a class just Wednesday and while I was getting my computer ready I heard a few people talking politics, and there were a couple moronic white guys talking about how Trump was gonna 'save the military' and a minute later an equally moronic white woman chimed in 'now Burnie Sanders might win the whole thing!'

It's just irresponsible of him at this point 'cause a notable amount of the populace is actually stupid enough to believe this shit. Hillary seems to have an appropriate level of contempt for the average American voter, which I think is important.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

 and there were a couple moronic white guys talking about how Trump was gonna 'save the military'

It's funny that attitude persists, even though Trump was the one who insulted a former POW.

Well, my experience (facebook wall) is that military veterans, for the most part, really hate Hillary.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

21 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

It's funny that attitude persists, even though Trump was the one who insulted a former POW.

Well, my experience (facebook wall) is that military veterans, for the most part, really hate Hillary.

Insulting a former POW has nothing to do with saving the military.  Obama is putting equality before effectiveness by allowing women into combat arms units.  Clinton/Sanders are seen as people in support of that.

That being said, I don't know that Trump has ever commented on women in combat arms.  He has said he is going to rebuild the military and make it great again.  That at least would give the impression that he is going to 'save' it.

Edit: Trump initially came out in support of women in combat, with the caveat that he wanted to hear from Generals.  He later changed his position to being against it, citing that the military brass did not want it, but that Obama was forcing political correctness.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I was doing a class just Wednesday and while I was getting my computer ready I heard a few people talking politics, and there were a couple moronic white guys talking about how Trump was gonna 'save the military' and a minute later an equally moronic white woman chimed in 'now Burnie Sanders might win the whole thing!'

It's just irresponsible of him at this point 'cause a notable amount of the populace is actually stupid enough to believe this shit. Hillary seems to have an appropriate level of contempt for the average American voter, which I think is important.

You did an entire class PQJ? I'm not one to judge, but that does seem a little greedy. 

Otherwise I agree. It's irresponsible to drag this out any further and continue to damage Clinton. Especially when she's a bad match up verses Trump.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You did an entire class PQJ? I'm not one to judge, but that does seem a little greedy. 

 

Greed? This was pure charity, those turnip heads spent half the time looking at me like I was explaining why the moon was made of cheese (which they would want to eat, 'cause they were all there on account of being fat).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Really? It's irresponsible for Bernie to finish his campaign? That 3 weeks to the last primaries are now the straw that break the back of Hillary's presidential campaign?

I mean Sanders line of attack against Clinton has been very consistent. She is a wallstreet sell out, she is not progressive enough and out of touch. Hearing that for 3 more weeks will damage her against Trump? 

Clinton is arugably the best known candidate to ever have run for president. People know her and like or do not like her. I don't really think Sanders finishing his campaign will change how people feel about Clinton, one way or another. 

So I would basically stick with Obama and say: let the primaries play out. We all know the math. 

Screaming for Sanders supporters it's time to drop out, will probably have the same effect on them as Romney's attack on Trump had on his supporters. 

So really, can somebody apart from the usual doom and gloom stuff, tell me what further damage is Sanders supposed to inflict on Clinton now?

[Jace, Extat]

It's escalation. The closer the end gets, the more Sanders and his followers scream 'conspiracy'. It serves only at this point to make those people even more alienated and hurt feelin'd when their man doesn't get the nomination. His continued obtuseness does nothing but potentially drive away men and women who's focus should be stopping the avalanche of horrors that would be a Donald J. Trump presidency. He is not 'gathering a revolution' as his mantra would state, but rather toying with the opening of a chasm from which it would take decades to climb out of. Ergo, irresponsible.

I liked Bernie, and I damn near voted for him in my state primary (where I was happy that he won by a landslide), but I'm not as young as all his fanatical supporters no more. Several decades to undo the damage of Trump is not worth this fantasy 'revolution' I keep hearing about.

Grow up, make the distasteful decision, do what is necessary to get to tomorrow. That's my personal issue with these 'Burnie or Bust' types. They want everything to go perfect, or fuck it all and we'll make them see it needs to be rebuilt from the ashes. That's the thinking of a child, and it's dangerous to people who have something to lose. My first impression when I hear their bullshit is that they've never gone without eating because they had to put their last $5 into gas to get to work, no, they're the type to call in sick until payday because they'd rather jeopardize tomorrow in exchange for short term gratification. Which in this instance means 'they're feewings awnt hwurt'. 

Get over it, if you need to throw up afterwards then take some pride that you had enough fortitude to do something that repulsed you so because it was necessary.

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

25 minutes ago, Notone said:

Really? It's irresponsible for Bernie to finish his campaign? That 3 weeks to the last primaries are now the straw that break the back of Hillary's presidential campaign?

I mean Sanders line of attack against Clinton has been very consistent. She is a wallstreet sell out, she is not progressive enough and out of touch. Hearing that for 3 more weeks will damage her against Trump? 

Clinton is arugably the best known candidate to ever have run for president. People know her and like or do not like her. I don't really think Sanders finishing his campaign will change how people feel about Clinton, one way or another. 

So I would basically stick with Obama and say: let the primaries play out. We all know the math. 

Screaming for Sanders supporters it's time to drop out, will probably have the same effect on them as Romney's attack on Trump had on his supporters. 

So really, can somebody apart from the usual doom and gloom stuff, tell me what further damage is Sanders supposed to inflict on Clinton now?

I don't think it's irresponsible for Sanders to stay in this until the last primary. In fact, I think that he SHOULD. I think it's important for the DNC to know exactly how big and enthusiastic the progressive wing of the Democratic party actually is. He should shore up as much support as he can and leverage it to get as much time, floor space and influence at the convention as he can. I think that's ultimately good for the Democratic party.

However, I do think that Sanders SHOULD NOT be attempting to delegitimize the primary or the nomination process, and that is absolutely what he has done at various stages of the campaign. At the start of his campaign, he took some shots at the superdelegates themselves (before they became his last-ditch strategy to win the nomination for himself). He's taken shots at some of the primaries being closed, even though he has tended to dominate caucuses even though those are closed as well (even more closed and more restrictive than closed primaries). And now, with the recent events in Nevada, he's openly attacking the integrity of the system and alleging that his delegates were mistreated even though I have not read one single account of that incident that has made a plausible case for how his delegates were treated, in any way, improperly. 

And I get that this is politics. And I get the strategy behind his early attacks against the superdelegates. I don't even necessarily think he's wrong on that front. And I get his selective outrage over closed primaries when it suits him to be outraged about it. I think he's dead wrong and playing a dangerous game with his statement about what happened in Nevada. But with the escalation of his own personal attacks, and his failure to reign in some of the more extreme attacks of his surrogates, he is really conveying the message that this nomination process has not been fundamentally fair to him. And I think that this is not only untrue, but it really does risk creating long-lasting fractures within the party, and the real, if remote, possibility that Trump could win this thing.

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Insulting a former POW has nothing to do with saving the military.  Obama is putting equality before effectiveness by allowing women into combat arms units.  Clinton/Sanders are seen as people in support of that.

That being said, I don't know that Trump has ever commented on women in combat arms.  He has said he is going to rebuild the military and make it great again.  That at least would give the impression that he is going to 'save' it.

Edit: Trump initially came out in support of women in combat, with the caveat that he wanted to hear from Generals.  He later changed his position to being against it, citing that the military brass did not want it, but that Obama was forcing political correctness.

That's true that insulting McCain doesn't technically making him incapable of "saving" the military, but it does show a lack of respect for someone who's experienced  horrors he's never come close to. And isn't respect what the military wants out of civilian leaders?

Regardless, that Trump supporters think he'll "save" the military is just another sign that they don't care about policy.  What are the problems with the military? What would Trump do to fix them? Is he just going to beat those problems to death with his normal sized penis that looks gigantic while held by his comically undersized hands? It seems like people that Trump will just solve problems by being a macho alpha male winner.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

It's escalation. The closer the end gets, the more Sanders and his followers scream 'conspiracy'. It serves only at this point to make those people even more alienated and hurt feelin'd when their man doesn't get the nomination. His continued obtuseness does nothing but potentially drive away men and women who's focus should be stopping the avalanche of horrors that would be a Donald J. Trump presidency. He is not 'gathering a revolution' as his mantra would state, but rather toying with the opening of a chasm from which it would take decades to climb out of. Ergo, irresponsible.

I liked Bernie, and I damn near voted for him in my state primary (where I was happy that he won by a landslide), but I'm not as young as all his fanatical supporters no more. Several decades to undo the damage of Trump is not worth this fantasy 'revolution' I keep hearing about.

Grow up, make the distasteful decision, do what is necessary to get to tomorrow. That's my personal issue with these 'Burnie or Bust' types. They want everything to go perfect, or fuck it all and we'll make them see it needs to be rebuilt from the ashes. That's the thinking of a child, and it's dangerous to people who have something to lose. My first impression when I hear their bullshit is that they've never gone without eating because they had to put their last $5 into gas to get to work, no, they're the type to call in sick until payday because they'd rather jeopardize tomorrow in exchange for short term gratification. Which in this instance means 'they're feewings awnt hwurt'. 

Get over it, if you need to throw up afterwards then take some pride that you had enough fortitude to do something that repulsed you so because it was necessary.

 

And by demanding him to drop out, it looks more like you are trying to extinguish that fire with gasoline. In all seriousness. Take a deep breath. Let Clinton shore up the last delegates she needs in three weeks and be done with it, as quietly as possible. 

The way the Clinton campaign and the DNC acts, this whole Sanders is damaging Clinton and his voters will go to Trump might turn out to be some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean what better way to demonstrate that there's no big establishment agreement to block Bernie, than for the establishment come forth in numbers and tell Sanders and his supporters to f off? Not to mention, that Trump will happily play that tune in the general election.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It's irresponsible to further fan the flames and exacerbate tensions within the party if you have basically no chance of winning and your goal is to defeat Trump. And what's worse, he's giving Trump material. Trump is basically parroting his attacks while trying to court Sanders supporters. He's also forcing both Clinton and the DNC to spend more resources that would otherwise be used more effectively in the general.

If Trump wins in November, the extended primary will be seen as one of the major reasons why Clinton lost.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

If Trump wins in November, the extended primary will be seen as one of the major reasons why Clinton lost.

Pfft. Everyone's going to have their pet excuse. If, god forbid, that happens, the the democrats are going to have to take some responsibility for nominating a candidate that has the highest unfavorability ratings of any candidate in the history of polling except for her opponent in the same election. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

24 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I don't think it's irresponsible for Sanders to stay in this until the last primary. In fact, I think that he SHOULD. I think it's important for the DNC to know exactly how big and enthusiastic the progressive wing of the Democratic party actually is. He should shore up as much support as he can and leverage it to get as much time, floor space and influence at the convention as he can. I think that's ultimately good for the Democratic party.

However, I do think that Sanders SHOULD NOT be attempting to delegitimize the primary or the nomination process, and that is absolutely what he has done at various stages of the campaign. At the start of his campaign, he took some shots at the superdelegates themselves (before they became his last-ditch strategy to win the nomination for himself). He's taken shots at some of the primaries being closed, even though he has tended to dominate caucuses even though those are closed as well (even more closed and more restrictive than closed primaries). And now, with the recent events in Nevada, he's openly attacking the integrity of the system and alleging that his delegates were mistreated even though I have not read one single account of that incident that has made a plausible case for how his delegates were treated, in any way, improperly. 

And I get that this is politics. And I get the strategy behind his early attacks against the superdelegates. I don't even necessarily think he's wrong on that front. And I get his selective outrage over closed primaries when it suits him to be outraged about it. I think he's dead wrong and playing a dangerous game with his statement about what happened in Nevada. But with the escalation of his own personal attacks, and his failure to reign in some of the more extreme attacks of his surrogates, he is really conveying the message that this nomination process has not been fundamentally fair to him. And I think that this is not only untrue, but it really does risk creating long-lasting fractures within the party, and the real, if remote, possibility that Trump could win this thing.

 

I thought that clusterfuck in Nevada goes a bit further back. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there were some problems with the voter registration. Even the DNC came forth and admitted that thing did not go as smoothly as it should have. I agree with the last part though, Sanders and his campaign should really reign in some of his supporters and their vitriol. How fair or unfair the nomination process had been to him, that is another question. I think Clinton has had somewhat of a headstart over the rest of the Democratic field, because of the additional media coverage. Sanders simply had been the lesser known candidate.