US Election 2016: DO NOT MY FRIENDS BECOME ADDICTED TO WATER

[The Anti-Targ]

So Hillary wins by getting another 73 delegates, the chances of Hillary not getting 73 delegates on 7 June are actually zero. Why is Sanders still fighting this thing? Does he believe that if he gets massive victories in all remaining states that he will be able to compel the super delegates to jump to him? But will he get massive victories.

If Hillary wins just 164 delegates on 7 June and Sanders wins 530 delegates (assuming for argument's sake that 4 June and 5 June are evenly split) then he's still short by 1 pledged delegate. Is it possible that Hillary will lose that big on 7 June? I imagine not.

[GrimTuesday]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So Hillary wins by getting another 73 delegates, the chances of Hillary not getting 73 delegates on 7 June are actually zero. Why is Sanders still fighting this thing? Does he believe that if he gets massive victories in all remaining states that he will be able to compel the super delegates to jump to him? But will he get massive victories.

If Hillary wins just 164 delegates on 7 June and Sanders wins 530 delegates (assuming for argument's sake that 4 June and 5 June are evenly split) then he's still short by 1 pledged delegate. Is it possible that Hillary will lose that big on 7 June? I imagine not.

It's highly unlikely. In the scenario you put forth, the idea that Clinton would only get a bit less than a quarter of the delegates is laughable, and if anyone thinks that Sanders would be able to to achieve such an unlikely resounding victory, I'd advise they get their head checked (or question whether or not they understand how politics actually work). A more likely scenario that would still involve Sanders winning, that is probably the best case scenario, is that Sanders wins maybe 52-55% of the delegates, and bumps up his popular vote count significantly (a resounding victory in California could narrow the ~3 million voter gap, but we're probably talking a win of around 66% for Sanders, which I find unlikely), and see if they can't draw off some super delegates.

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I have to finally admit that I've reached a boiling point with a rather sizeable section of Bernie supporters, at least those that I know or interact with in some way.  They act like they are in a stadium cheering on some sports team.  True, this is not specific to Bernie supporters.  Lots of political discussion at this stage turns into something that mirrors stadium cheering.  I can't stand it, but I don't like or get sports, so I tend to ignore it.  But damn, it makes me nearly cry to see people I love and people I usually consider highly intelligent act this way and say the dumbest things.  

I think I was wrong that it was a good thing that Bernie energized so many of the millennial (35 and younger) crowd because I'm dreading the idea of these people actually voting this year.  It's everything from completely false statements about Hillary to not understanding the political or election process to being wholly ignorant about how their votes for third party candidates affects the race.  I really thought it was great that my generation was finally starting to get politically active and involved but now I just want them to go away already.  The most terrifying thing is that I've met many who are like Altherion in that they seem to think it will be perfectly ok if Trump and the GOP dominate the wins.  

I think I should also admit that I'll have to start agreeing with those of you who say that Bernie should drop out already.  I'm seeing ways that he's damaging the progressive cause and it's quite upsetting.  

 

I totally get what you are saying, and this is coming from someone who has long wanted to see Sanders (or another member of the Democratic party who is more left wing) run. I love the policy he is putting forth, but at the same time, I understand that it is neigh impossibe for him to win at this point. He should be, even if he doesn't drop out, beginning to redirect his energy into trying to bring the party, and more importantly, his voter who might not identify with the party, together. I've seen a lot of folks who are espousing the whole Bernie or Bust line of thinking, but what they fail to see, or are willfully ignoring, is that by not voting for Hillary, you're essentially voting for Trump, which you would think is the last thing that they would want. I'm a strong supporter of Sanders, but I understand that politics is about compromise, even if it isn't what you want, the alternative would likely be worse, and as obnoxiously pandering as I think Clinton is, I think that she is better than Trump.

Though a friend of mine says that he is voting for Trump in hopes that after a little bit the voters will realize that Trump is an idiot and will be impeached, and everyone will have learned a valuable lesson. I reminded him that we live in America, and the American voters are morons, who, in 2000, based their vote in part by which candidate they would rather have a beer with.

[Myshkin]

9 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Though a friend of mine says that he is voting for Trump in hopes that after a little bit the voters will realize that Trump is an idiot and will be impeached, and everyone will have learned a valuable lesson. I reminded him that we live in America, and the American voters are morons, who, in 2000, based their vote in part by which candidate they would rather have a beer with.

First off, voters don't get to decide whether or not Trump (or anyone else) is impeached. Secondly, I'm guessing your friend is someone who doesn't actually stand to lose all that much under a Trump presidency. There are vast swaths of the Democratic coalition who don't have that luxury.

[GrimTuesday]

Just now, Myshkin said:

First off, voters don't get to decide whether or not Trump (or anyone else) is impeached. Secondly, I'm guessing your friend is someone who doesn't actually stand to lose all that much under a Trump presidency. There are vast swaths of the Democratic coalition who don't have that luxury.

I know exactly how the political process works (and I've got a fancy piece of paper to prove it (recent PoliSci grad)), but the point was that Trump would be an unmitigated disaster, and there would be such a public outcry that congress would have to to initiate impeachment procedures to save their own skin. My buddy isn't really in a position that he would be very much so affected by a Trump presidency, so you've got that right. In case I didn't make it clear, I don't share his sentiments, and have told him it is an awful idea, but Washington is a pretty safe Democratic state, so I'm not going to sweat it too much. If I lived in Ohio or something like that, I'd be plotting to break his legs in the run up to election night.

One thing that has always bugged me about the coverage of Trump, is that the media is painting his running for the highest office in the land as a singular event, but that is rediculous. There have been numerous examples of both the faboulously wealthy and the populous blowhards running for office. I'd say the closest parallel to Trump is Berlusconi in Italy, and all we have to do is look at how that turned out to see that A) Trump isn't really anything new in the grand scheme of things, and B), things will likely not end well (albeit with fewer sex scandals with underage prostitutes). Things need to be put into context, but it isn't.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So Hillary wins by getting another 73 delegates, the chances of Hillary not getting 73 delegates on 7 June are actually zero. Why is Sanders still fighting this thing? Does he believe that if he gets massive victories in all remaining states that he will be able to compel the super delegates to jump to him? But will he get massive victories.

If Hillary wins just 164 delegates on 7 June and Sanders wins 530 delegates (assuming for argument's sake that 4 June and 5 June are evenly split) then he's still short by 1 pledged delegate. Is it possible that Hillary will lose that big on 7 June? I imagine not.

Two things I believe.

Firstly, he's hoping for some insane series of events involving Clinton getting charged with a real crime and him doing really well in the remaining primaries and polling showing Clinton is weak against Trump and basically all of that together somehow convincing the superdelegates to back him instead. I think even he believes this is a bit of a longshot.

Secondly but I tihnk far more importantly to him, he's trying to win more delegates and flex his muscle with them to influence the Democratic Party at the convention and try and reshape it's platform and such. Hence all his attempting to strongarm guys he doesn't like out of the committees with a threat to let Trump win the general. He seems to believe this is some sort of all or nothing moment for him. It's his only shot to get something done and he seems pretty willing to burn some bridges to do it.

Alot of the rest of the talk frmo his campaign right now is, I think, partially him getting to into the campaign and really throwing out the shit he thinks really undiplomatically as he gets more and more desperate and half just putting on a performance to keep the donors riled up and the money coming in.

[Vastet]

"That's a nice sentiment, but there's no way to put it into practice. Clinton won more delegates, more votes and more states -- and would probably have done so even without the party registration shenanigans. There's no way to drop her without an indictment or something similarly massive and no such things appears to be forthcoming."

No, it's mostly in-party bs that has her in the lead. Take away the super delegates, many of whom voted before the race even started, and Hillary has literally 0 chance of forcing the party to accept her as nominee.

"Edited]: Sanders has been relatively untouched in terms of attacks so far, but if he were the candidate for the general, with his illegitimate son, essay on women fantasizing about gang rape, socialist ties, and the simple fact that his healthcare plans would raise taxes on everyone, he'd get pretty hammered in the general, especially by an asshole of Trump's caliber.  "

Bull. Trump makes Sanders look like a saint. Nothing in Sanders past is so bad it would hurt his chances. The very fact people have to time travel almost 50 years to find something objectionable is hilarious. And completely ignores the fact that his comments were quite in line with beliefs of the day.
You don't have to do any time travel to find a plethora of objectionable comments and actions for the other candidates.
And this isn't Westeros. Noone cares about illegitimate children.

"I think I should also admit that I'll have to start agreeing with those of you who say that Bernie should drop out already.  I'm seeing ways that he's damaging the progressive cause and it's quite upsetting."

That's patently ridiculous. Sanders is the only progressive candidate. Hillary would have been a Republican 40 years ago. She's dragging the party to the right.

[Ordos]

This will be my last post on the forum with both the words Donald and trump in it. I might be talking about Donald duck in the future and use trump as a verb. Several people have already pointed out that if you just don't talk about Trump, he will lose his power over you because that's exactly what he wants: people to keep talking about him. However now that he is the Republican nominee, it's difficult to talk American politics and avoid Donald Trump. Some have started using Drumpf, but I know a couple of people here disapprove of that.

When I was watching anti-Trump protesters on TV, I was telling my daughter that Donald Trump is a very very bad man. She said 'same as Donald duck!' to which I said 'Yes, he is a duck!' That  gave me an idea. I'm now referring to Trump as 'The Duck'. When the Duck wins a primary contest or the election, he will make a victory quack!

If anyone corners me into talking about him online or in the real world, I will call him the Duck. If he wins the election, I will try to ignore United States politics as much as possible, but if somebody brings it up I'll tell them that the United States has become irrelevant in the world because a duck sits in the oval office.

[The Marquis de Leech]

36 minutes ago, Vastet said:

"That's a nice sentiment, but there's no way to put it into practice. Clinton won more delegates, more votes and more states -- and would probably have done so even without the party registration shenanigans. There's no way to drop her without an indictment or something similarly massive and no such things appears to be forthcoming."

No, it's mostly in-party bs that has her in the lead. Take away the super delegates, many of whom voted before the race even started, and Hillary has literally 0 chance of forcing the party to accept her as nominee.

"Edited]: Sanders has been relatively untouched in terms of attacks so far, but if he were the candidate for the general, with his illegitimate son, essay on women fantasizing about gang rape, socialist ties, and the simple fact that his healthcare plans would raise taxes on everyone, he'd get pretty hammered in the general, especially by an asshole of Trump's caliber.  "

Bull. Trump makes Sanders look like a saint. Nothing in Sanders past is so bad it would hurt his chances. The very fact people have to time travel almost 50 years to find something objectionable is hilarious. And completely ignores the fact that his comments were quite in line with beliefs of the day.
You don't have to do any time travel to find a plethora of objectionable comments and actions for the other candidates.
And this isn't Westeros. Noone cares about illegitimate children.

"I think I should also admit that I'll have to start agreeing with those of you who say that Bernie should drop out already.  I'm seeing ways that he's damaging the progressive cause and it's quite upsetting."

That's patently ridiculous. Sanders is the only progressive candidate. Hillary would have been a Republican 40 years ago. She's dragging the party to the right.

Oh for goodness sake.

Hillary is going to be the nominee for the same reason Obama was the nominee in 2008 - having more pledged delegates. Super delegates simply follow the lead of the voters, and the voters chose Hillary. In fact, Hillary's margin in 2016 is greater than Obama's was eight years ago.

Had I been an American, I'd have voted for Sanders, no question. But whinging about conspiracies is utter bullshit and only serves to discredit the cause of the Left.

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 minutes ago, Ordos said:

This will be my last post on the forum with both the words Donald and trump in it. I might be talking about Donald duck in the future and use trump as a verb. Several people have already pointed out that if you just don't talk about Trump, he will lose his power over you because that's exactly what he wants: people to keep talking about him. However now that he is the Republican nominee, it's difficult to talk American politics and avoid Donald Trump. Some have started using Drumpf, but I know a couple of people here disapprove of that.

When I was watching anti-Trump protesters on TV, I was telling my daughter that Donald Trump is a very very bad man. She said 'same as Donald duck!' to which I said 'Yes, he is a duck!' That  gave me an idea. I'm now referring to Trump as 'The Duck'. When the Duck wins a primary contest or the election, he will make a victory quack!

If anyone corners me into talking about him online or in the real world, I will call him the Duck. If he wins the election, I will try to ignore United States politics as much as possible, but if somebody brings it up I'll tell them that the United States has become irrelevant in the world because a duck sits in the oval office.

Stupid name-calling doesn't achieve anything either. Political debate is more sophisticated than the equivalent of marking one's territory via verbal urine, even if the subject matter is Donald Trump.

[Jace, Extat]

Please, enlighten us all to the conspiracy. Pray tell, what have you diagnosed in your infinite wisdom that proves 2.9 million votes worth of difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders? Or, if you will explain how the superdelegates are the only thing that give her a chance when she could lose every state from here on and provided the losses are not exclusively of the 35<65 variety in favor of Sanders she will reach the total necessary pledged delegates to win the nomination without a single superdelegate. In fact, if California votes as projected it'll be over in a week.

But please, go ahead. Engage us in your inane babble on subjects about which you clearly know precisely nothing.

[Vastet]

I never said there was a conspiracy and I never said that the superdelegates were her only hope.

1: Never assume conspiracy when stupidity is more likely.

2: Without the superdelegates Hillary can't claim the nomination before the convention.

It's quite clear that you're the one babbling and ignorant.

[The guy from the Vale]

yes, but that's only because the superdelegates, while having endorsed her, aren't bound by their own words. If there were no superdelegates, Clinton would have officially won a month ago.

[Vastet]

If there were no superdelegates Hillary wouldn't be nearly as far ahead as she is.

[Jace, Extat]

No, child. The super delegates have not voted and will not do so until the convention. They  endorsed Hillary as a form of nonbinding support at the beginning of the campaign, the only factor they've added to the race at this point is to keep the door open for Sanders if he can magically start winning by 75% in every state and convince them to back him over the more popular candidate.

If super delegates didn't exist, Sanders would already be mathematically eliminated at this point. HRC is winning by a large margin based solely on pledged delegates, which are won on a per state basis according to their own primary or caucus rules. She's also accrued the better part of 3 million more votes from citizens. 

2 hours ago, Vastet said:

No, it's mostly in-party bs that has her in the lead. Take away the super delegates, many of whom voted before the race even started, and Hillary has literally 0 chance of forcing the party to accept her as nominee.

 

Your words, quoted directly. The super delegates have actually not voted, as I said above.

And you claimed here that without said super delegates that she has zero chance of winning, which I've pointed out again as false. Perhaps take a moment and educate yourself before you reply, appear a bit more developed.

[Altherion]

14 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

If there were no superdelegates, Clinton would have officially won a month ago.

This is not true. If we exclude the superdelegates, a candidate needs 2026 delegates to win. Clinton has around 1770 and Sanders has around 1500. It is exceedingly unlikely that Sanders catches up, but it is not impossible. In fact, Clinton cannot get to a majority of ordinary delegates until June 7.

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

It's highly unlikely. In the scenario you put forth, the idea that Clinton would only get a bit less than a quarter of the delegates is laughable, and if anyone thinks that Sanders would be able to to achieve such an unlikely resounding victory, I'd advise they get their head checked (or question whether or not they understand how politics actually work). A more likely scenario that would still involve Sanders winning, that is probably the best case scenario, is that Sanders wins maybe 52-55% of the delegates, and bumps up his popular vote count significantly (a resounding victory in California could narrow the ~3 million voter gap, but we're probably talking a win of around 66% for Sanders, which I find unlikely), and see if they can't draw off some super delegates.

I totally get what you are saying, and this is coming from someone who has long wanted to see Sanders (or another member of the Democratic party who is more left wing) run. I love the policy he is putting forth, but at the same time, I understand that it is neigh impossibe for him to win at this point. He should be, even if he doesn't drop out, beginning to redirect his energy into trying to bring the party, and more importantly, his voter who might not identify with the party, together. I've seen a lot of folks who are espousing the whole Bernie or Bust line of thinking, but what they fail to see, or are willfully ignoring, is that by not voting for Hillary, you're essentially voting for Trump, which you would think is the last thing that they would want. I'm a strong supporter of Sanders, but I understand that politics is about compromise, even if it isn't what you want, the alternative would likely be worse, and as obnoxiously pandering as I think Clinton is, I think that she is better than Trump.

Though a friend of mine says that he is voting for Trump in hopes that after a little bit the voters will realize that Trump is an idiot and will be impeached, and everyone will have learned a valuable lesson. I reminded him that we live in America, and the American voters are morons, who, in 2000, based their vote in part by which candidate they would rather have a beer with.

Why on Earth would he do that? He only joined the Democratic party because that was his pathway to the presidency. If he doesn't get the nomination he will quite happily see the Democratic party burn because he has no real interest in or loyalty to the Democratic Party. He sees the Democrats as a whole as Republican lite because on many issues he's further left of the Democratic consensus position than the Democrats are left to the Republican consensus position, and on some things he seems more aligned with the Republicans. This is the thing, a party loyalist in Sander's position would drop out, shake hands with Hillary and say it was a good fight, but it's time to come together and work for the common good, which includes maximising the Democratic share of House seats and taking back the Senate. Sanders isn;t interested in any of that.

All my opinion of course, but that's the way I see it with a person who only joins a party to serve a specific self-interested end.

[DanteGabriel]

16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is not true. If we exclude the superdelegates, a candidate needs 2026 delegates to win. Clinton has around 1770 and Sanders has around 1500. It is exceedingly unlikely that Sanders catches up, but it is not impossible. In fact, Clinton cannot get to a majority of ordinary delegates until June 7.

There are roughly 700 superdelegates. If there were no superdelegates, the pledged delegates alone would total around 3300 (there are roughly 4000 with superdelegates). So yes, Clinton with 1770 would have already gotten a majority.

[Altherion]

6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

There are roughly 700 superdelegates. If there were no superdelegates, the pledged delegates alone would total around 3300 (there are roughly 4000 with superdelegates). So yes, Clinton with 1770 would have already gotten a majority.

No. There is a grand total of 4765 Democratic delegates of which 714 are superdelegates. Thus, there are roughly 4000 without superdelegates and one needs slightly over 2000 for a majority.

[Dr. Pepper]

Has this already been posted?  

The Nazi Tweets of 'Trump God Emperor'

The title caught my eye considering a certain poster around here.  He can't really hide his intent now.

In the article, Jonathan Weisman details the extreme anti-semitic hate from Trump supporters he and other Jewish journalists have experienced this elections cycle, and also how Trump has done nothing to disavow it.

[TrackerNeil]

 

2 hours ago, Vastet said:

2: Without the superdelegates Hillary can't claim the nomination before the convention.

See the following.

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

There are roughly 700 superdelegates. If there were no superdelegates, the pledged delegates alone would total around 3300 (there are roughly 4000 with superdelegates). So yes, Clinton with 1770 would have already gotten a majority.

Vastet, your claim is true only if you forget that the majority needed to clinch the nomination includes the superdelegates. And before you start on the SDs, remember that Sanders has been angling for their support as well.

Also, we should not exclude superdelegates because they are as much a part of the process as the caucuses, which to many also don't seem very democratic. Yet I notice Sanders supporters don't seem ready to disavow those. The system is what it is, and although it's never wrong to suggest reform, it seems peevish to complain about the results of a system that functioned according to the rules everyone knew it advance.