2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
that makes no sense.

A democratic President getting little support form Democrats who need the same people voting for them.
Click to expand...

His policies are not part of the Democratic platform which would result in only some Dems voting for them. Another reason why his candidacy is more so a protest than something tangibly implementable.

Single payer, breaking up the banks, free University, and speculation taxes would not be supported by many Dems.
 
Raoul said:
His policies are not part of the Democratic platform which would result in only some Dems voting for them. Another reason why his candidacy is more so a protest than something tangibly implementable.

Single payer, breaking up the banks, free University, and speculation taxes would not be supported by many Dems.
Click to expand...

think this is what the current cycle is all about on both sides.

Who represents what the voters want.

And if Voters really decide what policies are to be implemented or do politicians who get elected by voters , then do what their funders want.
 
Red Dreams said:
think this is what the current cycle is all about on both sides.

Who represents what the voters want.

And if Voters really decide what policies are to be implemented or do politicians who get elected by voters , then do what their funders want.
Click to expand...

Who has longer memories?
 
naturalized said:
Maybe, and I'm sure you're right that this helps Obama be the adult in the room. Just seems to me that if there's a prize worth going to the mat for, it's SCOTUS, though. As Trump would put it - you need leverage. Obama's already met them halfway, after all.
Click to expand...
The obstructionism the GOP is putting up to Garland, as well as helping the Dems out in November generally, is going to allow them to go nuclear past the filibuster with RBG's replacement, a new liberal stalwart, provided they win the Senate.

Great piece of strategy all around if it works out, good on the GOP for playing their part.
 
Ubik said:
The obstructionism the GOP is putting up to Garland, as well as helping the Dems out in November generally, is going to allow them to go nuclear past the filibuster with RBG's replacement, a new liberal stalwart, provided they win the Senate.

Great piece of strategy all around if it works out, good on the GOP for playing their part.
Click to expand...

I was confused there, for a minute :lol:
 
Red Dreams said:
I am talking about governance and following the concepts of Democracy.

sort of old fashioned concepts that have carried us this far.
Click to expand...

But you said it yourself, the issue is whether representatives follow or not, right? And the question they're faced with is "is my electorate paying attention/will they remember next cycle?". Because if the answer is "no", then the representative will sure like to have that money for TV time so they can say whatever nonsense they have to say and likely keep their seat.

It sure doesn't help when Democrat turnout is so low in mid-terms.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
They are a firewall, theoretically, against someone like Trump. Nevertheless, they've never gone against the pledged delegates count since their inception.

It's a really non-issue. Just a losing campaign being salty about it. Actually, if they award supers based on the states they've won respectively, Sanders would fare even worse against Clinton and will mathematically be out of the race by April 26.
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
MarceloFalcon said:
But you said it yourself, the issue is whether representatives follow or not, right? And the question they're faced with is "is my electorate paying attention/will they remember next cycle?". Because if the answer is "no", then the representative will sure like to have that money for TV time so they can say whatever nonsense they have to say and likely keep their seat.

It sure doesn't help when Democrat turnout is so low in mid-terms.
Click to expand...

What you are talking about are the 'mechanics'. I'm not necessarily disagreeing.

But the fact remains, all this side footing and not fulfilling what the electorate needs, which has gone on for decades btw is why voters are this angry.

imo we really do not know where this cycle will lead us.

Just fasten your seat belt cause we are in for a wild ride and we do not know where it will end.
 
berbatrick said:
:confused:
Click to expand...

You want to be down by 212 pledged delegates officially, with the chance to flip Clinton's 470 supers, or be down 400+ if supers are dole out proportionally? Bear in mind that Clinton won the large states, the ones, you know, with the most supers.

Sanders is already over-represented. He has 46% of pledged delegates with only 42% popular vote count. Making a big deal about supers is like finding a cure for cancer while you are dying from diabetes.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
You want to be down by 212 pledged delegates officially, with the chance to flip Clinton's 470 supers, or be down 400+ if supers are dole out proportionally? Bear in mind that Clinton won the large states, the ones, you know, with the most supers.

Sanders is already over-represented. He has 46% of pledged delegates with only 42% popular vote count. Making a big deal about supers is like finding a cure for cancer while you are dying from diabetes.
Click to expand...

I read your post about total votes including caucuses last time and was wondering where I was going wrong. I found it. Turnout in primaries is ~10-15% while in caucus states it's 2-4%.
So obviously in terms of raw national numbers that's bad for him.

The rest of the states have gone proportionally for the most part. (He benefited in MA, lost in some Southern states where he got 11% of delegates, though that is not possible if ratios were being used since 15 is the threshold -- it's because some delegates were awarded by total cotes across the state and other by districts won).

Now, whether states like TX should have such a large say in the Dem selection is another matter.
 
Red Dreams said:
think this is what the current cycle is all about on both sides.

Who represents what the voters want.

And if Voters really decide what policies are to be implemented or do politicians who get elected by voters , then do what their funders want.
Click to expand...

Party platforms are influenced by who wins the election, but in this case I can't see the Dems adopting Bernie's free shit for all ideas because a lot of Dem congressional candidates would be in trouble against GOP challengers. The Republicans would invest a lot of time to run agaisnt Sanders' policies after the humiliation of having lost the WH to a socialist.
 
You campaign on all 50 states, not just the states demographically favorable to you. Basing the number of delegates count on population is as fair as it gets. If the South shouldn't get that big a say in the nominating process, then what about Utah, Idaho, Kansas etc...? Obama lost them by 30+. Not to mention that, it's like giving a big middle finger to the most repressed groups by voters suppression, minorities in red states.
 
Am I the only one who never understood why delegates awarded from states (be it proportionally or winner takes all) is a worse system than the popular vote. Essentially, the vote of almost half of Americans means feck all in the grand scheme of things considering that those live in states that always go to the other party.

Which actually makes this question valid: 'Why Clinton should get the nomination cause he won a bunch of states that in the end would give 0 delegates to Democrats'?

The entire system looks to me that it is more for the show rather than seeing what the people really want.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
You campaign on all 50 states, not just the states demographically favorable to you. Basing the number of delegates count on population is as fair as it gets. If the South shouldn't get that big a say in the nominating process, then what about Utah, Idaho, Kansas etc...? Obama lost them by 30+. Not to mention that, it's like giving a big middle finger to the most repressed groups by voters suppression, minorities in red states.
Click to expand...

I would also weigh Utah and Idaho less, and MA and NY and PA (and other Hillary states) more.
I think the system is supposed to be that the nominee reflects the party, and weighing states with more Dems higher would make more sense.


Also, I noticed there was no response to the caucus turnout part :)
 
berbatrick said:
Also, I noticed there was no response to the caucus turnout part :)
Click to expand...

Because it's pointless to extrapolate on what if scenario. What type of thing would you have in its place, closed, semi-closed, open primary? Early ballots? Then we have to account in the fact that the Clinton camp would direct more resources into those states if it were the case. Instead of a blowout 70-30, you can have a Missouri or a Wisconsin. Either case would not significantly benefit Sanders.

I disagree with your method. Obama carried the Southern states and he did fine in the general, twice. African Americans are the most reliable voting bloc of the Dems. Why would their voice be worth less just because they live in (historically recently) red states? In this election, there are potential for the Dems to win MS, SC, NC, AZ and GA. All red states, 4 of them Sourthern.

Party's platform, constituency and geographical advantage change over time. Just as the GOP boxed themselves in with the Southern strategy, you don't want to repeat the mistake with Dems and the North and Midwest.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Because it's pointless to extrapolate on what if scenario. What type of thing would you have in its place, closed, semi-closed, open primary? Early ballots? Then we have to account in the fact that the Clinton camp would direct more resources into those states if it were the case. Instead of a blowout 70-30, you can have a Missouri or a Wisconsin. Either case would not significantly benefit Sanders.

I disagree with your method. Obama carried the Southern states and he did fine in the general, twice. African Americans are the most reliable voting bloc of the Dems. Why would their voice be worth less just because they live in (historically recently) red states? In this election, there are potential for the Dems to win MS, SC, NC, AZ and GA. All red states, 4 of them Sourthern.

Party's platform, constituency and geographical advantage change over time. Just as the GOP boxed themselves in with the Southern strategy, you don't want to repeat the mistake with Dems and the North and Midwest.
Click to expand...


I said this before. It needs to be a combination of population, no. of registered Dems, and no. of Dems in statewide offices. No one factor should distort the outcome.

Also, given that the delegates involved are he same whether it's a primary or a caucus, I don't get why she didn't put more resources into them anyway.
 
berbatrick said:
I said this before. It needs to be a combination of population, no. of registered Dems, and no. of Dems in statewide offices. No one factor should distort the outcome.

Also, given that the delegates involved are he same whether it's a primary or a caucus, I don't get why she didn't put more resources into them anyway.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that's pretty close to the way it's already done. Registering by number of Dems in Texas is fairly difficult as they don't register by party affiliation there. 222 seems alright for Texas given the population and the number of minorities living there. Compare Pennsylvania, which has 189 delegates, but half the overall population (13m to 26m). Washington state, 101 delegates, 7m population. New Jersey - 126 delegates, 9m, etc.
 
berbatrick said:
I said this before. It needs to be a combination of population, no. of registered Dems, and no. of Dems in statewide offices. No one factor should distort the outcome.

Also, given that the delegates involved are he same whether it's a primary or a caucus, I don't get why she didn't put more resources into them anyway.
Click to expand...

She had a humongous lead after Super Tuesday and March 15. Priorities USA stopped spending and her campaign cut back in preparation for the general. If it were a truly competitive race, they would have put the money in to at least siphon off a couple of delegates.

No. of Dems in statewide office is a very problematic proposal. Red states are gerrymandered to death, so Dems as it is don't stand a good chance of being elected. If they are not elected, they are under-represented in your system. It's a closed loop. The first two are good, maybe with same-day registration.
 
Ubik said:
Pretty sure that's pretty close to the way it's already done. Registering by number of Dems in Texas is fairly difficult as they don't register by party affiliation there. 222 seems alright for Texas given the population and the number of minorities living there. Compare Pennsylvania, which has 189 delegates, but half the overall population (13m to 26m). Washington state, 101 delegates, 7m population. New Jersey - 126 delegates, 9m, etc.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense.
 
Grinner said:
Why do I still keep hearing this bullshit figure that 90 million Americans are out of work?
Click to expand...

Can you imagine how absolutely terrible things would be if that figure were unemployed-looking for work? Probably keep hearing it because don't think most people think about how absurd that statement is (how 90 relates to 320).
 
Red Dreams said:
but neither do I think the 5% unemployment is real. There has to be large underemployment numbers in there.
Click to expand...

That'll be the U1 numbers or something, I guess. The measures used are available, and you'll find the other ones grouped under U2-U6, including the underemployed, those who've given upon employment, etc. Those don't get a fair shake in the preferred stat.
 
Eriku said:
That'll be the U1 numbers or something, I guess. The measures used are available, and you'll find the other ones grouped under U2-U6, including the underemployed, those who've given upon employment, etc. Those don't get a fair shake in the preferred stat.
Click to expand...

U3 is the widely referred to at 5%. U6 includes those employed part time because of economic reasons and is at 10% these days. Underemployment in terms of actual work vs potential the BLS doesn't measure. I think Pew has a measure of sorts.

I'm not making it up when I say that companies in the fast food business have been saying it's been tough to keep up staff levels. This is just one data point, of course.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
U3 is the widely referred to at 5%. U6 includes those employed part time because of economic reasons and is at 10% these days. Underemployment in terms of actual work vs potential the BLS doesn't measure. I think Pew has a measure of sorts.

I'm not making it up when I say that companies in the fast food business have been saying it's been tough to keep up staff levels. This is just one data point, of course.
Click to expand...

My bad, I've only gotten a quick run-down on those stats from my wife, who has an infinitely better grasp of them and the nature of stats in general. However, the U6 does include those who would like to work more but can't find it (or so google would have me believe). The U3 doesn't include the poor sods who work 3-4 jobs and still can't make ends meet, or the people who haven't been searching for a while because they've been banging their head against the wall for too long.
 
Back to the election, apparently Eric and Ivanka Trump forgot to register, he can't count on their votes :lol:
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
You want to be down by 212 pledged delegates officially, with the chance to flip Clinton's 470 supers, or be down 400+ if supers are dole out proportionally? Bear in mind that Clinton won the large states, the ones, you know, with the most supers.

Sanders is already over-represented. He has 46% of pledged delegates with only 42% popular vote count. Making a big deal about supers is like finding a cure for cancer while you are dying from diabetes.
Click to expand...
Good description. I was confused at first but see what you are saying now. I suppose I'm troubled beyond the current situation though. If you have a popular vote select one candidate and these supers decide it is the wrong choice what message does that send?
 
55 guns from Vermont were among the 7686 guns recovered in NY state. (as a yardstick, Georgia had 386)

Or, to put it in Clinton-speak,the number of guns per capita from Vermont is the highest of any state.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/05/h...k-on-bernie-is-not-backed-up-by-federal-data/
It was really audacious for her to use the line about artful smears on Bernie. This is a meaningless statistic dressed up to look damning. I can imagine an intern looking at ways to normalise data, having a eureka moment, and the campaign not even bothering to explain why this particular measure is the appropriate one.

And @InfiniteBoredom wonders why she isn't liked by parts of the left.
In fact, on that note, there's another thing I don't get. You said that all that matters is winning. So how can you expect candidates who embody that to be liked on the left? Unprincipled non-stances followed by reversals won't be liked by anyone with a consistent ideology, but are the bedrock of a ruthless campaign.
 
Does anybody seriously believe that Bernie Sanders is pro-gun in any way other than sane ownership and sensible laws?
 
Grinner said:
Does anybody seriously believe that Bernie Sanders is pro-gun in any way other than sane ownership and sensible laws?
Click to expand...

He's far more pro-gun than what my ideal candidate would be, and it's the one issue where she can credibly attack him because she has no baggage (though in 2008 she accused Obama of trying to overturn the 2nd amendment). But I guess repeating the same lines from both sides about the gun manufacturer liability was giving her diminishing results, so she's chosen this convoluted madness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.