2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

[Weeping Sore]

Sanders admits he should have campaigned more in 2015.  Also, in hindsight he though he ought to have done more retail politicking in Iowa to increase his chances of sweeping the first three states. But that would just have put him in much the same delegate position with better optics. What he needed was a way to slow down the bleeding he did in the southern states, a way to convert massacres into respectable losses.

Obviously he wasn't able to convince the majority of African American and Latino primary voters that he was the best choice. I think a class-based argument has a challenge with voters who have suffered intra-class racism.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

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.

Trump has specifically cited the weakening of the military under democratic leadership, and said he would increase funding to it.  He has spoken against women in combat arms, so presumably he would reverse the Obama administration's course on that.  He's also published a policy position on how to reform the VA, which is naturally of interest to active-duty military and veterans.  These are what contribute to the commanding lead Trump has over Clinton among service members.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

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. 

Everyone will have their excuses, but this will be a legitimate one. Imo Trump's best (and maybe only) path to victory is a depressed Democratic electorate, and Sanders refusal to drop out combined with the racketed up rhetoric is fostering that environment.

[Sullen]

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

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.

Arguably, Bernie-or-Busters could use more or less the same line of thinking for throwing the elections. They don't see "What is necessary" the same way that you do, because they simply do not have the same end goals as you.

 

"We'll make the distasteful decision, do what is necessary and let Trump win"

"We'll go without food if it means going to work"

"Hilary supporters would rather jeopardize my tomorrow for short term gratification. Which in this instance means "Their comfort isn't lost"."

"We'll throw up afterwards, but take pride that we had enough fortitude to do something that repulsed us because it was necessary."

 

Using condescension to try to sway young zealous people with delusions of revolution is counter-productive, it'll only drive them away. Spirit of conciliation is key here, but sadly it seems both parties are stubborn and will keep referring to one another as "corrupt conspirators stealing a nomination" and a "violent, ignorant and dangerous mob".

[TrackerNeil]

16 minutes ago, Sullen said:

Arguably, Bernie-or-Busters could use more or less the same line of thinking for throwing the elections. They don't see "What is necessary" the same way that you do, because they simply do not have the same end goals as you.

That is certainly true. Yes indeed.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

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.

I think that this argument worked really well for a long time, but in this election, it has become clear that in fact what you claim is necessary is actually not necessary at all. Tomorrow will come regardless of anything you do and a large number of people who had stuff to lose have been losing it for decades despite the regular alternation of the parties in both Congress and the Presidency.

[Fez]

So I've now both seen pundits say that Trump should pick Mark Cuban as his VP and other pundits say that Clinton should pick Mark Cuban as her VP. And I remember seeing a few weeks ago pundits say Mark Cuban should run for President in 2020. Where did this obsession with Mark Cuban come from?

FTW, he actually responded to the Clinton talk, saying he'd "absolutely listen."

[TerraPrime]

2 hours ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Trump has specifically cited the weakening of the military under democratic leadership, and said he would increase funding to it.  He has spoken against women in combat arms, so presumably he would reverse the Obama administration's course on that.  He's also published a policy position on how to reform the VA, which is naturally of interest to active-duty military and veterans.  These are what contribute to the commanding lead Trump has over Clinton among service members.

 

Oh give me a break.

The military always breaks for the GOP, far as I can tell. All of this is just post-hoc justification.

 

Which, by the way, is itself an indictment of the electorate. The GOP is good at draping themselves in the flag and wearing lapel pins and mouthing the platitudes, but look at the way they actually treat veterans, from their legislative records to their campaign efforts when the Democrat is a veteran, and it is amazing to me that people will still think the GOP supports our veterans and our armed services members. The fact that the GOP gets away with this just means that the armed services and veterans are voting to get themselves screwed over.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

2 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

 

Oh give me a break.

The military always breaks for the GOP, far as I can tell. All of this is just post-hoc justification.

 

Which, by the way, is itself an indictment of the electorate. The GOP is good at draping themselves in the flag and wearing lapel pins and mouthing the platitudes, but look at the way they actually treat veterans, from their legislative records to their campaign efforts when the Democrat is a veteran, and it is amazing to me that people will still think the GOP supports our veterans and our armed services members. The fact that the GOP gets away with this just means that the armed services and veterans are voting to get themselves screwed over.

Considering that between Clinton and Obama the Democrats have put over a million service members out of work says otherwise.  Why would they want to vote for someone who is going to fire you?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The notion that the U.S. military needs to be rebuilt is utter nonsense. The U.S. spends more on the military than the next seven countries combined, and we account for a third of all military expenditures in the entire world. If anything we're wasting billions upon billions of dollars because Members of Congress keep appropriating funds for things the military doesn't even want to protect our largest jobs program. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

34 minutes ago, Fez said:

So I've now both seen pundits say that Trump should pick Mark Cuban as his VP and other pundits say that Clinton should pick Mark Cuban as her VP. And I remember seeing a few weeks ago pundits say Mark Cuban should run for President in 2020. Where did this obsession with Mark Cuban come from?

FTW, he actually responded to the Clinton talk, saying he'd "absolutely listen."

In short Mark Cuban should pick Chuck Norris as VP? But that leaves out a serious question, well two basically, but one you did ask yourself already.

1. What kinda pundits came up with Cuban.

2. How did Cuban end up as the VP pick for both parties according to those pundits? 

And I think Hillary should pick Jon Stewart as her VP to get the young and more left voters she does not seem to able to connect to. It doesn't make less sense than freaking Mark Cuban.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

The notion that the U.S. military needs to be rebuilt is utter nonsense. The U.S. spends more on the military than the next seven countries combined, and we account for a third of all military expenditures in the entire world. If anything we're wasting billions upon billions of dollars because Members of Congress keep appropriating funds for things the military doesn't even want to protect our largest jobs program. 

You've just answered your own assertion.  Funding levels don't tell the whole picture if you're spending it on things that aren't improving combat capability, especially if you're taking other actions that are reducing it.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Sullen said:

Arguably, Bernie-or-Busters could use more or less the same line of thinking for throwing the elections. They don't see "What is necessary" the same way that you do, because they simply do not have the same end goals as you.

 

"We'll make the distasteful decision, do what is necessary and let Trump win"

"We'll go without food if it means going to work"

"Hilary supporters would rather jeopardize my tomorrow for short term gratification. Which in this instance means "Their comfort isn't lost"."

"We'll throw up afterwards, but take pride that we had enough fortitude to do something that repulsed us because it was necessary."

 

Using condescension to try to sway young zealous people with delusions of revolution is counter-productive, it'll only drive them away. Spirit of conciliation is key here, but sadly it seems both parties are stubborn and will keep referring to one another as "corrupt conspirators stealing a nomination" and a "violent, ignorant and dangerous mob".

Again, I mark their attitudes as a sense of entitlement and general irresponsibility. I've seen far too few of these Bernites willing to accept responsibility for what their wishful petulance could cause, rather it's 'pander to me!!!' and 'you have to meet my every demand or I'll try to burn the whole thing down!'

Compromise is what these types claim is most offensive to them about Clinton and by extension President Obama. A reconciliation seems far from their interest, whereas it is precisely the reason that I and several others dislike Sanders' continued efforts.

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I think that this argument worked really well for a long time, but in this election, it has become clear that in fact what you claim is necessary is actually not necessary at all. Tomorrow will come regardless of anything you do and a large number of people who had stuff to lose have been losing it for decades despite the regular alternation of the parties in both Congress and the Presidency.

Tomorrow will always come, but is it really worth letting the economy crumble to dust as American debt no longer becomes a viable investment? Is it worth the open discrimination that will be faced by Americans who practice Islam? Or any minority for that matter? Is the backwards Republican majority that would reassert control over the Supreme Court with the power to reverse 8 years of painstaking progress worth it?

And all for what? To show the 'establishment' that you're unhappy with an eminently qualified candidate who's morals you find dubious? Who's morals, it's worth pointing out, would very likely not be found in question if not for her gender? Sure, you're not a fan. That's fine, you can hate her personally. But to absolve yourself of the fallout, what could set about the ruin of a nation of 330 million people is beyond irresponsible, it's despicable.

54 minutes ago, Fez said:

So I've now both seen pundits say that Trump should pick Mark Cuban as his VP and other pundits say that Clinton should pick Mark Cuban as her VP. And I remember seeing a few weeks ago pundits say Mark Cuban should run for President in 2020. Where did this obsession with Mark Cuban come from?

FTW, he actually responded to the Clinton talk, saying he'd "absolutely listen."

Reality TV star billionaire, that's what the people want, now.

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

20 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Considering that between Clinton and Obama the Democrats have put over a million service members out of work says otherwise.  Why would they want to vote for someone who is going to fire you?

Out of work? Most service members look count the days until they get to leave.

As for Cuban. I think's it's cause they think flamboyant reality TV show billionaires are all the rage, but people see Cuban as less of a douche than Trump. Not to mention he's actually a billionaire.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

You've just answered your own assertion.  Funding levels don't tell the whole picture if you're spending it on things that aren't improving combat capability, especially if you're taking other actions that are reducing it.

You just praised Trump for saying he'd increase funding. All I was doing was pointing out that if anything the military is grossly over funded. 

[Myshkin]

Bernie doesn't need to drop out. I think he should drop out, because he has no chance at the nomination and I can't see anything positive being accomplished by his staying in. But his not dropping out isn't the problem; his excuses for not dropping out are the problem. He is actively trying to delegitimize Clinton's victories. He is saying that the process itself was rigged and unfair, heavily implying that had the process been fair he of course would have won. He is telling his supporters that Clinton has stolen the nomination. And yeah, that's a fucking problem. It's also the height of entitlement. Bernie Sanders thinks he deserves to be President, and he's willing to burn the whole thing down when the electorate votes otherwise. I've had my problems with Bernie the candidate from the beginning, but I always thought of him as a fundamentally good guy. Now though I think we're starting to get a good look at who he really is, and it's ugly.

Also as regards Mark Cuban, I think it's important to remember that he is an Ayn Rand worshipping Objectivist. That alone should disqualify him from holding any public office.

[Kalbear]

Yeah. I don't want Sanders to drop out. I want him to tell everyone that it's hugely important that he stays in until the end so that everyone can see who the winner is, fair and square. I want him to tell everyone that the most important thing that they can likely do in their lifetime is ensure someone other than  Trump is president, and if Trump becomes president none of Sanders' dreams can possibly become reality. 

But I don't think he will, because I think he's a stubborn political asshat. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Idk about that  Kal. I'm pretty sure he will strongly endorse Clinton at the convention, but I fear that the damage will already be done with his supporters. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Idk about that  Kal. I'm pretty sure he will strongly endorse Clinton at the convention, but I fear that the damage will already be done with his supporters. 

I don't even buy that. 

I used to think that this is what Sanders would do, but I think he'll threaten to withhold his endorsement unless Clinton promises basically what Sanders said he wanted Clinton to do. And he will believe that him not endorsing her is the Right Thing. Right now, he's not acting remotely like a rational actor, and he certainly doesn't appear to be acting with anyone's best interests in mind other than his own. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't even buy that. 

I used to think that this is what Sanders would do, but I think he'll threaten to withhold his endorsement unless Clinton promises basically what Sanders said he wanted Clinton to do. And he will believe that him not endorsing her is the Right Thing. Right now, he's not acting remotely like a rational actor, and he certainly doesn't appear to be acting with anyone's best interests in mind other than his own. 

If he did that he might as well resign from the Senate, because you can bet he'd be stripped of all his committee assignments.