April U.S. Primaries |OT| Vote in 20 Turns for World Leader

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoped for a better performance from Cruz. Trump might win the GE. He is mobilizing voters and breaking records. Cruz, on the other hand, has no chance. Too religious.
 
giga said:
that-stupid-drudge-siren-lol.gif


Jeff Weaver video: http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1757302
Click to expand...

"Hello darkness my old friend..."
 
pigeon said:
As Jeff Weaver will no doubt tell you, those superdelegates are not bound and can switch their vote at any time, so it's not like Hillary had them locked in a closet.

I can understand why it feels sketchy that so many of them said they'd vote for Hillary, but something to keep in mind is that the majority of superdelegates are Democratic politicians, and saying they can't pledge their vote is basically the same as saying they can't endorse a candidate at all. I'm not convinced that eliminating political endorsements would be good for the party or for democracy in general.
Click to expand...

I know how it works, but I just think the primary process overall would be for the better if the super delegates at least had to wait awhile before everyone throws in with the favorite at the very start.
 
Piecake said:
That is what Clinton is doing.

If some Bernie supporters say they aren't voting because some Clinton supporters hurt their feelings then they weren't going to vote in the general election anyway. If you care about the issues and the direction of the country you will vote no matter what.
Click to expand...

Well for those Bernie supporters out there that really believe in all of the causes they claim to believe in, then they better unite and support Clinton. Or else have an Republican president that will pass so called "Religious Freedom Laws" on an federal level. If they get that deciding Supreme Court pick, it can happen. Scary shit.
 
Scarfo said:
Look, I'm supporting whoever the democratic party presents, and today it's officially Hillary. What I'm saying is since voter turn out is down overall (on the democratic side) regardless of demographics, it would be an wise suggestion for unity, now that this nomination process is basically at it's end. All this "we don't need or want bernie supporters" is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

the lower turnout is... the less necessary the supporters of the person who didn't win become... arguably.

but yes, 'we don't want or need' Sanders supporters is ridiculous, but it's a retort to the people refusing to vote for Clinton mainly because she's beating their candidate. If someone is going to refuse to vote for Clinton over Cruz or Trump because she beat Bernie... I don't think Clinton needs those people to win, even though she will likely want the rest of his supporters.

turnout is down because Sanders isn't as exciting a candidate as Obama. Obama vs Clinton... now that was a real fight with high interest. Turnout is up on the Republican side in no small part because a lot of people really don't like at least one of the candidates running.

If you think turnout will be an issue for Democrats if the race is Clinton vs Trump or Clinton vs Cruz... you aren't really paying attention.

The media have tried to make the democratic side seem more competitive than it has been, and certainly Sanders supporters have too, in order to drive interest to the race... but when Clinton won Nevada two months ago the stage was clearly set... and nothing that has happened since has caused plausible doubt in a Clinton victory.
 
Is it true that Trump only spent 64,000 in NY? Damn. He will need to open up the wallet in California though. The amount of delegates he wins there could be the deciding factor. Kind of fun seeing the late states have a huge roll.
 
Wafflecakes said:
.... money in politics.

The irony.
Click to expand...

Jimmy King said:
dat money in politics
Click to expand...

Kite said:
$$ in politics~
Click to expand...

I thought the money in politics issue was always a matter of corruption when it comes to voting in office, not the sole deciding factor in elections. That is why he raised money from individuals instead of electing not to raise money...

And yes, any candidate who desperately needed to win the home state of the front-runner and media-favored candidate would have to outspend them.

Edit:

NimbusD said:
I don't think you guys understand what... ugh... nevermind. Congrats guys.
Click to expand...
 
Gutek said:
Hoped for a better performance from Cruz. Trump might win the GE. He is mobilizing voters and breaking records. Cruz, on the other hand, has no chance. Too religious.
Click to expand...

He is mobilizing voters... absolutely. But he isn't unilaterally mobilizing voters that will vote *for him*.

More people have voted for Clinton in the primaries than have voted for Trump in the primaries. There's no smoke here, let alone any fire.
 
silkysmooth said:
the most infuriating thing about some Sanders supporters

has done more to turn me off of him than anything
Click to expand...

I don't think people should be put off from someone because of their most abrasive/blinkered supporters

I'm not the biggest fan of hillary as it is, but If I were to let the people in the PoliGAF thread color my perception of her further I'd probably think she were the spawn of Satan
 
Syncytia said:
I know how it works, but I just think the primary process overall would be for the better if the super delegates at least had to wait awhile before everyone throws in with the favorite at the very start.
Click to expand...

You can't really do this because you're basically asking 700 prominent Democratic politicians not to endorse a candidate for the entire cycle.
 
Syncytia said:
I just mean as far as the primary process itself and the candidates competing for the nomination. Without the pledged delegates, Hillary's lead would be slightly less comfortable than it is and I would hope that would in turn cause her to campaign harder (better?).
Click to expand...

This election has been over since March 1st. Anybody saying anything other is lying to themselves and others. Cable News of course doesn't want it to be over because of ratings, but it was pretty clear to anyone based on demographics that the primary was pretty much decided on March 1st.

You could see that it was over on February 27th when Hillary won 73% of the vote in South Carolina with the vast majority of black voters. Obama would have lost in 2008 without the majority support of black voters as well.
 
plagiarize said:
the lower turnout is... the less necessary the supporters of the person who didn't win become... arguably.

but yes, 'we don't want or need' Sanders supporters is ridiculous, but it's a retort to the people refusing to vote for Clinton mainly because she's beating their candidate. If someone is going to refuse to vote for Clinton over Cruz or Trump because she beat Bernie... I don't think Clinton needs those people to win, even though she will likely want the rest of his supporters.

turnout is down because Sanders isn't as exciting a candidate as Obama. Obama vs Clinton... now that was a real fight with high interest. Turnout is up on the Republican side in no small part because a lot of people really don't like at least one of the candidates running.

If you think turnout will be an issue for Democrats if the race is Clinton vs Trump or Clinton vs Cruz... you aren't really paying attention.

The media have tried to make the democratic side seem more competitive than it has been, and certainly Sanders supporters have too, in order to drive interest to the race... but when Clinton won Nevada two months ago the stage was clearly set... and nothing that has happened since has caused plausible doubt in a Clinton victory.
Click to expand...

True. I recall when Obama won many Clinton supporters was at first saying PUMA (Party Unity My Ass), but they eventually unified. Hopefully this will happen again,,because so much is at stake.
 
Dangansona said:
I thought the money in politics issue was always a matter of corruption when it comes to voting in office, not the sole deciding factor in elections. That is why he raised money from individuals instead of electing not to raise money...

And yes, any candidate who desperately needed to win the home state of the front-runner and media-favored candidate would have to outspend them.
Click to expand...

Sanders’ corruption argument — which has now become almost the entire message of his campaign — is also intellectually dishonest. The role of big money in our election process is disgusting and I think everyone despises it. Citizens United, that awful Supreme Court case that gutted campaign finance reform and opened the floodgates to PACs and superPACs and dark money, has been universally condemned by Democrats, who have tried and failed to get the Senate to pass legislation required to begin the process of amending the Constitution to overturn it. Hillary Clinton has personally been on the receiving end of coordinated attacks by that kind of money for many years, and the Citizens United case itself involved the use of funds to attack her. She immediately denounced the decision and overturning it is part of her campaign platform — whether through appointment of more progressive judges on the Supreme Court or by Constitutional amendment, and that was her own platform and position before Sanders announced his candidacy.

So this is not an issue he “owns” or brought to light despite claiming — falsely — that he does not accept money from PACs. Sanders has called Clinton corrupt and all other Democrats corrupt as he runs on the Democratic platform, undermining the very party he claims to want to lead and, again, suggesting that only he can be trusted because their fundraising is suspect, while his is not, because he does not “take” money from corporations. This argument is dishonest, sanctimonious, and misleading, and has allowed Sanders to set him himself on a pedestal while fomenting unfair negative impressions about Clinton and others. Here is why:

· Sanders insinuates Clinton’s positions on Wall Street reform and other issues are driven by campaign contributions. He hasn’t pointed to and can’t point to any instance in which Clinton’s vote or action anywhere has been a result of a campaign contribution. Her campaign platform, moreover, includes all kinds of regulation on many of the industries that Sanders insinuates she won’t take on. There is literally no proof or evidence that she has ever voted based on a contribution or that she will do so — it is pure insinuation.

· Sanders accepted $10,000 from a Hillary superPAC in 2006 when he was running for re-election. Apparently superPAC money is only bad when Hillary is his opponent; otherwise, he’s okay with it.

· Sanders accepts money from PACs. The PAC money he has accepted has typically been from unions, lobbying groups, single-issue groups, and other special interest groups, but these are still PACs — they just happen to be for groups in industries that he does not revile. The fact that they are left-leaning does not mean they are not PACs.

· Sanders insinuates, and has started to state outright, that Hillary and other Democrats’ positions on Wall Street form, universal health care, and climate change are based on ties to those industries. The insinuation itself is at odds with history. The Democrats enacted Dodd-Frank (which has a process for breaking up banks) after the financial crisis — how or why did they do this if they are all the corporate shills that Sanders claims they are? Obama raised over a billion dollars to get elected in 2008 and then again to be re-elected in 2012 and has done more for progressive causes than anyone since LBJ — is he a corporate shill, bought and sold, corrupt? Did his climate change efforts not go far enough because he is corrupt, or because of implacable GOP opposition? Are the Democrats who have pushed for health care for years, including Hillary, lying when they put forward a platform that calls for progressive change?

· Sanders uses terms like “Wall Street” and “fossil fuel industry” to imply that entire industries have engaged in a coordinated effort to dump piles of cash on Clinton — and have done so as a quid pro quo. The reality is that campaign contributions come from individual human beings, who then indicate what line of work they are in on their contribution form. Sanders uses the fact that he has few contributions from people who work in the financial sector to suggest that Hillary is in bed with the “industry” and that that is the reason she does not demand the immediate breakup of the big banks. But Hillary was NY’s senator for eight years and the financial sector is a huge source of jobs and tax revenue for the state of NY; it’s hardly surprising that individuals in that industry would not give money to the man who vilifies them multiple times a day as immoral scourges ruining America, and who wants to break up banks without having a clue as to how he would do so or why or what he would do afterward to address the effect on the economy. In other words, support for Hillary from these people doesn’t mean she’s bought and sold by them; it means they don’t want Sanders, and who can blame them?

What Sanders does is very devious: he trades on legitimate and widely shared concerns about the role of big money coming from the wealthy, including billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson, to then suggest that individual contributions from anyone in any industry he doesn’t like are part of a coordinated industry/billionaire attempt to avoid regulation and to further enrich the one percent, and then he insinuates that Hillary must be bought and sold by those industries because of those individual contributions. That way, anyone who supports her is part of the problem. And then it becomes an act of immorality to vote for her, and a symbol of one’s own moral purity, indeed a rejection of corruption itself, to vote for Sanders. Clever. Intellectually dishonest, McCarthyite, and gross, but clever.
Click to expand...

https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.5wtr2s48y
 
Scarfo said:
True. I recall when Obama won many Clinton supporters was at first saying PUMA (Party Unity My Ass), but they eventually unified. Hopefully this will happen again,,because so much is at stake.
Click to expand...

It will only happen if Hillary makes a major, convincing effort to appeal to Sanders voters. So far, her two messages of "I've been there!" and "Who else are you gonna vote for?" haven't found much purchase with his supporters.

Wafflecakes said:
TYT arguing that it is ok to dislike people, even friends, for supporting Hillary.
Click to expand...

TYT is just a left reflection of Breitbart, with the journalistic integrity of Gawker.
 
Over 90% in and Clinton is at 57.5%, although I expect it to go a little more towards Clinton, because the Sanders leaning counties are mostly in, while Clinton's counties are not all the way yet. Probably will be 58-42 Clinton.
 
JVIDICAN said:
Hey the gaps been closed to 15%. In line with most polls at least. Positives! xD Nice win Hillary.
Click to expand...

The NYTimes is estimating a final split of around 16 points, 42 to 58 - a lot of the upstate / rural counties have already been counted (and don't have large populations in the first place), many of the final remaining counties are in the city / Westchester / Nassau, which have favored Hillary in the 60%+ range and thus will widen her lead again, but not by much.

A strong showing, and almost identical to her victory over Obama in 2008 I think (40% to 57%).
 
Valhelm said:
It will only happen if Hillary makes a major, convincing effort to appeal to Sanders voters. So far, her two messages of "I've been there!" and "Who else are you gonna vote for?" haven't found much purchase with his supporters.
Click to expand...

It's Clinton who drove her voters to support Obama. I think it's fair to say that it'll be Sanders' responsibility to get his voters to vote for Clinton. I'm still confident that he will stump for her. I'd be shocked if he would be so petty as to refuse to do this.
 
Valhelm said:
It will only happen if Hillary makes a major, convincing effort to appeal to Sanders voters. So far, her two messages of "I've been there!" and "Who else are you gonna vote for?" haven't found much purchase with his supporters.
Click to expand...
Because the contest is still going. These groups invariably fall in line once that's done.
 
Dangansona said:
I thought the money in politics issue was always a matter of corruption when it comes to voting in office, not the sole deciding factor in elections. That is why he raised money from individuals instead of electing not to raise money...

And yes, any candidate who desperately needed to win the home state of the front-runner and media-favored candidate would have to outspend them.
Click to expand...

There are a number of issues with money in politics. The general idea though that whoever has the most can obliterate the competition though has had a reality check this election cycle (see: Jeb)
 
Valhelm said:
It will only happen if Hillary makes a major, convincing effort to appeal to Sanders voters. So far, her two messages of "I've been there!" and "Who else are you gonna vote for?" haven't found much purchase with his supporters.


.
Click to expand...
I think the big picture of this extreme right wing Republican Party controlling the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court will wake them the hell up, regardless on how well Hillary communicates to them. These rash of Republicans passing religious freedom discrimination laws should ring a bell what's at stake here.
 
plagiarize said:
It's Clinton who drove her voters to support Obama. I think it's fair to say that it'll be Sanders' responsibility to get his voters to vote for Clinton. I'm still confident that he will stump for her. I'd be shocked if he would be so petty as to refuse to do this.
Click to expand...

Sanders will almost certainly make a big effort to support Clinton, but the situation is slightly different. He isn't running for president again in 8 years, and he's ideologically much more distinct from the frontrunner than Obama was.

Because so many Sanders supporters are nonvoters or independents who will lose interest once their boy loses, some real proactive outreach will be necessary to keep them within the Democratic fold. Because many Sanders supporters like him because of his perceived sincerity rather than his policies, it will be tough for Clinton to convince them of her own authenticity.
 
Jimmy King said:
There are a number of issues with money in politics. The general idea though that whoever has the most can obliterate the competition though has had a reality check this election cycle (see: Jeb)
Click to expand...

No that's not issue was with money in politics. The issue is lobbyists buying favours from politicians. Surely people understand that?
 
Pyroclastic said:
I don't people should be put off from someone because of their most abrasive/blinkered supporters

I'm not the biggest fan of hillary as it is, but If I were to let the people in the PoliGAF thread color my perception of her further I'd probably think she were the spawn of Satan
Click to expand...

Exactly this. I am a Bernie supporter (and I'm a minority! Imagine that!) and I will admit that there is nastiness seen in his supporters, especially on Reddit that people love quoting. However, there is also a lot of condescension seen from Hillary supporters constantly. Especially when there is a win. However, I'm able to separate myself from those supporters and not judge a candidate solely based on that. As some have said before, now is the time of unity in the Democratic party. Democrats win with large voter turnout, correct? Constantly gloating and saying you don't need Bernie's supporters' votes is not doing any service to your cause.

With that being said, I will most definitely vote for Hillary if (when) she is the Democratic candidate. I just wish there was more unity going on than constant snarkiness between both parties.

Also - this is my first post of GAF! Be nice :)
 
I want to see a Clinton/Sanders//Sanders/Clinton ticket -- either order. Don't like seeing all this animosity within the dem party. Want to see dems united strong against Trump/Cruz.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Rehearsal season 2 - April 20th.
6
298
Dacvak replied
Those who lived, terror attack in Stockholm, april 7, 2017. We survived.
4
572
Trilobit replied
This is not a April Fool's 2025 thread
0
284
San Dan Glokta replied
A24 - Alex Garland - WARFARE - April 11
41
2K
skneogaf replied
Oscars 2025 |OT|
2
75
4K
Zathalus replied
Top Bottom