Super Tuesday 2016 |OT| The Final Incursion is a double Incursion (Mar 5-15 contests)
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
RPGCrazied
Member
Nice, nice to see Trump get 0 this time. I really, really hope he loses Florida and Ohio. Enough of this assclown.
Because they honestly believe she has a better chance of getting shit done, much more so then Sanders. Crazy talk.
Of course, if maintaining the status quo is getting shit done, she has the better chance. But why are Hillary supporters okay with more of the same?
GoldenEye 007
Member
Only way shit gets done regardless is if Dems decide to vote in 2018.
I think the only way we will have a real chance at change is if we can get someone in the Whitehouse that did not receive corporate donations This will encourage other honest dems to run on small donations, unbeholden to demands from big money. Voting for Sanders will show that Americans want uncorrupted politicians. Hillary shows we are okay with how it is now. This is how I see it.
Trump confirmed more popular than Cruz with the establishment
That's fine, we will see. But a lot of us have seen this time and time again. Every time it's going to be "different".
2018 will be here in no time, and it will be very blatantly obvious if this momentum that we see today is being continued, or once again dead in the water awaiting 2020. Personally as a liberal I have everything to gain by hoping you are right, but I have just seen it too many times to get my hopes up.
Watching it deflate, even after the choice of young voters won the Presidency in 08 was pretty eye opening. Bernie isn't going to get to the general, I cannot even imagine what its going to look like this time. But who knows.
You know. This isn't fox news. You can't 'will' something into existence by repeating it over and over. That's not how it works.
Because Hillary's platform ISN'T more of the same? You can't just make radical change in our political system. It has, and it always will be, made in incremental steps, with compromise.
She isn't a status quo candidate, though. Like, you're ignoring both her record of being more domestically liberal than Obama and her stances on the issues.
She isn't as left as Sanders obviously, but sanders has a much smaller chance of getting things done.
I'm not even a Hillary supporter.
Abinash117
Member
I hope that isn't what you only think should happen. Because regardless of he gets paid by wallstreet or not it makes no difference if he doesn't have a Congress he can work with. So no it is not real change whatsoever. It only matters if real change comes from the state level. So far, I do not think democratic primary voters are wanting him, if so he would be winning now.
No Democrat is going to have a Congress they can work with. We haven't had a functional Congress in years.
The point is that Bernie successfully winning the election for President of the United States of America would show the Democratic party that their shtick of toeing the line and dragging their feet isn't enough. It would show them that the people want more candidates like Bernie. At every level.
Bernie winning might not be a functional victory, but it a very symbolic one and can only mean good things for the future.
Not to mention that Hillary won't be able to get shit done either (not that she'll try to do anything big), but at least Bernie would be aiming higher.
And don't give me that "Bernie won't compromise like Hillary does" nonsense. Look at his history.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
The big problem is that right now, Bernie isn't showing that Dems want more candidates like him.
They're literally showing in both delegates and votes that they are okay with the Dem establishment.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Doubtful.
Regardless of one's political leanings, it's pretty indisputable that Trump and his antics sucked in all the air this weekend.
New WSJ/NBC/Marist poll:
Republicans:
Democrats:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/polls-trump-ahead-florida-illinois-kasich-leads-ohio-n537356
Republicans:
Democrats:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/polls-trump-ahead-florida-illinois-kasich-leads-ohio-n537356
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Wow, that is a much closer race in Illinois for the Democrats than any other poll has shown.
If that lead in Florida holds, it will certainly be devastating to the Sanders campaign. And I'm assuming with it being a closed primary and with such a big black vote it will be more or less 60-40, which translates to falling behind another 80 delegates or so, when he really ought to be, at worst, tying her. (He could probably get away with that as it's pretty much the last southern state along with NC.)New WSJ/NBC/Marist poll:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/polls-trump-ahead-florida-illinois-kasich-leads-ohio-n537356
I'm assuming Ohio will be a lot closer, and he may even win Illinois as that's within the margin of error, plus Missouri. But a loss of that margin in Florida more or less spells the end :/
Edit: not sure if already posted, but CBS has Sanders leading by 2% (within error of +-6%) in Illinois and down by just 9% (also within error of +-5.3%) in Ohio.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-trump-and-kasich-neck-and-neck-ohio-trump-leads-florida/
love this cartoon
That's really good.
Florida has advance voting, among other things, not to mention all this polling. It would be perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain that he lost the primary.
Rubio's career is over, at this point. He blew what should have been a golden opportunity, and is on the verge of allowing one of two utterly unelectable candidates to receive the nomination. He's going to lose, big, in his home state. There's no reason for anybody to invest money in him in the future.
DragonSworne
Banned
Plus, he is terrible for this country so him not having a future in politics is amazing news.
gaf still swearing by polls is hilarious.
He blew everything by jumping into the race and attacking Jeb. Jeb still runs GOP politics in the state. All he's accomplished is pissing off the most important donors in Florida, looking like a joke to Trump and now heading for a huge loss in his own state.
His career is dead.
RPGCrazied
Member
Maybe. But I'd rather deal with Rubio as President and take my chances than Trump. Sorry, just can't stomach him as President.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Probably because she isn't promising people stars and planets light years away but instead is telling people things she feels she can actually get done within our current political climate (and honestly much of the stuff she wants to get passed probably won't either tbh).
Most voters in the US are pragmatic.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Honestly they're both horrible for the country. It's like choosing between the guy who got a 10/100 on his science project or the guy who got a 9/100.
You are falling for a logical fallacy. I'm assuming you are saying this because the Michigan poll was wrong.
In "most" cases polls decently predict likely outcome. The races where they don't predict the likely outcome are not the norm.
There is no guarantee the polls align perfectly with the results. They are one of the best indicators we have though.
If you are making a general case that polls are bad predictors of the outcome then please show me some sound and consistent data.
Edit:
This is probably something akin to an anecdotal fallacy. I can't really find a better name for it.
The biggest issue by far this election is the next president most likely will choose up to 4 Supreem Court justices. Regardless of Bernie or Hillary being the nominee, if you are for recinding citizens United it's imperative a Democrat is elected to roll back that decision.
Frankly, everything else does not matter due to the hurdles of divided government and the do-nothing house of Representatives. The fastest way to progress isn't the minor squabbles of the current nominees. It's making sure liberal justices are placed on the court. Full stop.
Yeah, basically. A 5-4 liberal majority can make key rulings on gerrymandering before the next redistricting, for instance.
Not sure how you get to four unless you're automatically assuming the next president gets two terms. And the Supreme Court, almost by definition, isn't the "fastest" way to anything.
Also, Citizens United is important for a subset of the Democratic party, not all. Anyone thinking electing any (random) Democrat to president is going to make its repeal their imperative is fooling themselves. Each candidate is different and has different priorities, and Citizens United probably doesn't event rank in the Top 5 issues for most Democrats. Lawrence Lessig? Okay. Jim Webb? Hell no.
You got 3 pushing 80(Give or take), while the rest are around 20 years younger. Good chance one or two will be retiring soon.
Scalia's seat most likely will be filled by the next president.
Ginsburg is likely to have to retire within the next term, and certainly will if it's a Democrat.
Breyer would probably retire during the next term if it's a Democrat, and otherwise try to wait it out. But with him and Kennedy, they're of an age where you never know what will happen.
As to it not being the quickest way to change, I have to disagree taking the last 16 years into perspective. There's a reason why the GOP flipped it's fucking shit when Scalia died and is outright refusing to preform their constitutional duties. They get it. Not sure why Democrats do not.
Granted I don't think conservative justices like Scalia and Thomas interpretations are done in good faith, whereas Democrats will play by the rules. But we have seen the fallout of allowing them to stack the court.
The Koch brothers have a war chest of 980 million they're spending on this election alone that a decade prior would have been illegal. That is a direct, tangible result of Reagan and Two Bushes in the white house. Even more so when interpretation at the highest level was done in bad faith to further their ideology agenda.
Just a few weeks ago Obama's directive to have the EPA regulate carbon emissions was on life support. That's no longer the case because a evil man croaked.
SCOTUS is a big fucking deal. It's going to be the biggest result of this election for the next few decades; everything from surveillance and civil liberties, to climate change and the attempt to further plutocrasize our democracy.
Whatever laws Bernie or Hillary pass are going to wind through the court to SCOTUS. They will live and die by who is on the bench, as the opposition has decided any Dem in office or the legislature is illegitimate. We've seen this with both Bill Clinton and Obama now. It's a reality that must be taken into account if we want change.
Granted I don't think conservative justices like Scalia and Thomas interpretations are done in good faith, whereas Democrats will play by the rules. But we have seen the fallout of allowing them to stack the court.
The Koch brothers have a war chest of 980 million they're spending on this election alone that a decade prior would have been illegal. That is a direct, tangible result of Reagan and Two Bushes in the white house. Even more so when interpretation at the highest level was done in bad faith to further their ideology agenda.
Just a few weeks ago Obama's directive to have the EPA regulate carbon emissions was on life support. That's no longer the case because a evil man croaked.
SCOTUS is a big fucking deal. It's going to be the biggest result of this election for the next few decades; everything from surveillance and civil liberties, to climate change and the attempt to further plutocrasize our democracy.
Whatever laws Bernie or Hillary pass are going to wind through the court to SCOTUS. They will live and die by who is on the bench, as the opposition has decided any Dem in office or the legislature is illegitimate. We've seen this with both Bill Clinton and Obama now. It's a reality that must be taken into account if we want change.
Yep. Not only that, but the only hope of getting rid of Citizen's United lies in the Court. There's no way in hell a constitutional amendment will pass in this climate.
The Supreme Court basically gets to dictate how far a certain ideology can go and we have the chance to recast the Court more toward real progress on important issues.
gutter_trash
Banned
lets dispel the notion that Rubio is a moderate.
Seems like the establishment is already switching over to Kasich:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...s/2016/03/john-kasich-mitt-romney-ohio-220703
Leona Lewis
Banned
Lord_Byron28
Member
They should just save their money or donate it to more important things. It's way too late in the game for Kasich to turn it around. Not too mention the wheel of establishment duds this primary cycle has gone through, people won't be willing to listen to the last resort.
Might not be. Many of the States left have high delegate counts and are winner take all.
That said Rubio would have to pull out a victory in FL them immediately drop out and pledge his delegates to Kasich.
brainchild
Banned
What you're arguing doesn't apply to the reality of the situation in Michigan.
When your margin of error is 3%, through the use of statistical inferencing, you CAN GUARANTEE that it won't be off by 20-30%...if the methodology is close to perfect.
The polls weren't off by that much just because they were unlucky. They were off by that much because their methodology didn't accurately account for independents in open primaries.
Since then, some pollsters have adjusted their methodology, and as a result, you see much tighter race predictions in IL, OH, and MO.
- Status