Basileus777
Member
No one thinks he has a chance of winning in SC. The question is if he can narrow the gap with black voters.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
No one thinks he has a chance of winning in SC. The question is if he can narrow the gap with black voters.
But that's not how the system works. Ideally the system would rewards equal representation based on voters desires--that's not what is happening. I realize we're not a representative democracy, but you can't claim it's a democratic process when the powers that be can just give support to whomever they want. How can Bernie and Hillary tie in IA, and he blows her out in NH, and she still has more delegates (not even counting unpledged delegates from other states, of which she has like 350)?
We can't tell people every vote is important and then the Democratic Party just ignores them.
This must be your first rodeo. This happened last time in 08, 04, 00, 96, 92, 88, 84, 80, 76.
Obama and Clinton both had superdelegates. Hillary's just playing the game better this time. The popular vote like the EC does not determine the nomination/presidency. Delegates/Electors do.
No one thinks he has a chance of winning in SC. The question is if he can narrow the gap with black voters.
Two weeks from now is Super Tuesday. He needs to have closed the gap by then.
I also think that Berniementum necessitates him to come off on top in Nevada and then carry that to keep it close in South Carolina. We have no polls for Nevada and at this point, the race is not close in South Carolina. Nevada could help, but if it's even a big-ish win for Clinton, that could really sour him heading into South Carolina. And if Bernie is weakened after SC, there's no chance he has at coming off on top on Super Tuesday if Hillary has the wind at her back.
I don't see him coming close to closing that gap with black voters. I feel like it would've happened by now since it's a Real Race versus a coronation. And that'll hurt him in the March states.
I don't see him coming close to closing that gap with black voters. I feel like it would've happened by now since it's a Real Race versus a coronation. And that'll hurt him in the March states.
shinra-bansho
Member
"this business with the Super Delegates" is going to be a persistent thing going forward even when she's ahead with pledged delegates, I'm assuming. Where people either cannot tell the difference or deliberately ignore the difference between a party nomination process and an election.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
"this business with the Super Delegates" is going to be a persistent thing going forward even when she's ahead with pledged delegates, I'm assuming.
which is par for the course with sanders campaign.
muddy the waters and pretend clinton is no better than republicans.
Ogrekiller
Member
But that's not how the system works. Ideally the system would rewards equal representation based on voters desires--that's not what is happening. I realize we're not a representative democracy, but you can't claim it's a democratic process when the powers that be can just give support to whomever they want. How can Bernie and Hillary tie in IA, and he blows her out in NH, and she still has more delegates (not even counting unpledged delegates from other states, of which she has like 350)?
We can't tell people every vote is important and then the Democratic Party just ignores them.
Bernie knows this. He didn't campaign for Democrats for their votes, he knew the stakes going in. He himself IS a superdelegate.
If he didn't care he would have run as an independent. But supporters cannot say they didn't know that he needed superdelegates to win when they themselves weren't informed in the first place and knew about Bernie BECAUSE he is running as a Democrat.
neurosisxeno
Member
This must be your first rodeo. This happened last time in 08, 04, 00, 96, 92, 88, 84, 80, 76.
Obama and Clinton both had superdelegates. Hillary's just playing the game better this time.
I acknowledge that. But just because a flawed system is continually used doesn't mean it's a good system. I don't like the idea of equating electing the leader of the free world to a game.
"this business with the Super Delegates" is going to be a persistent thing going forward even when she's ahead with pledged delegates, I'm assuming. Where people either cannot tell the difference or deliberately ignore the difference between a party nomination process and an election.
Tell that to news outlets that on both Iowa and NH election nights were showing "Delegate Counters" which factored all of Hillary's super delegates in making it look like Sanders was basically buried. I only saw a few that seperated pledged and unpledged delegates, in most situations it was just an ambiguous monochromatic bar.
RustyNails
Member
The cook political report posted earlier said Bernie actually fell 6 delegates short in Iowa (probably path to nomination). In New Hampshire he just about hit his mark at 15 delegates. And now in Nevada he needs to outperform Clinton by 3 delegates (which I would assume is somewhere north of 5% margin?). Anyways Clinton outperformed him by 6 delegates in his most favorable states. Even if he closes the gap and relies on bernmentum, it wont be enough to turn the ship around. The cold hard math is going to hit him and his supporters very, very hard.I also think that Berniementum necessitates him to come off on top in Nevada and then carry that to keep it close in South Carolina. We have no polls for Nevada and at this point, the race is not close in South Carolina. Nevada could help, but if it's even a big-ish win for Clinton, that could really sour him heading into South Carolina. And if Bernie is weakened after SC, there's no chance he has at coming off on top on Super Tuesday if Hillary has the wind at her back.
I don't see him coming close to closing that gap with black voters. I feel like it would've happened by now since it's a Real Race versus a coronation. And that'll hurt him in the March states.
I acknowledge that. But just because a flawed system is continually used doesn't mean it's a good system. I don't like the idea of equating electing the leader of the free world to a game.
Tell that to news outlets that on both Iowa and NH election nights were showing "Delegate Counters" which factored all of Hillary's super delegates in making it look like Sanders was basically buried. I only saw a few that seperated pledged and unpledged delegates, in most situations it was just an ambiguous monochromatic bar.
you also have to realize that Sanders can win the popular vote and still lose the nomination.
"this business with the Super Delegates" is going to be a persistent thing going forward even when she's ahead with pledged delegates, I'm assuming. Where people either cannot tell the difference or deliberately ignore the difference between a party nomination process and an election.
So Melkr_ is right, she does have to win by 400 for it to be legitimate.
Ogrekiller
Member
The cook political report posted earlier said Bernie actually fell 6 delegates short in Iowa (probably path to nomination). In New Hampshire he just about hit his mark at 15 delegates. And now in Nevada he needs to outperform Clinton by 3 delegates (which I would assume is somewhere north of 5% margin?). Anyways Clinton outperformed him by 6 delegates in his most favorable states. Even if he closes the gap and relies on bernmentum, it wont be enough to turn the ship around. The cold hard math is going to hit him and his supporters very, very hard.
Like when you receive your first paycheck and notice all the taxes. Reality checks are rough.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
you also have to realize that Sanders can win the popular vote and still lose the nomination.
like clinton...
like clinton...
like Gore in 2000...
like Gore in 2000...
Well... We know who caused that.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
GOP has to be extremely worried right now because of the way this is all panning out.
Yes, if two of the three establishment guys of Rubio/Cruz/Jeb drop out, they can overtake Trump. However, I don't think they drop out any time soon; plus, Carson and Kasich will eventually drop out, and I think Trump is the guy who will get the majority of those voters.
Then, even if Rubio can magically pull out a miracle win, Trump is assuredly going to blame the RNC for stacking crowds against him and runs third party, siphoning a ton of GOP votes away from Rubio. It is a huge problem for them.
Yes, if two of the three establishment guys of Rubio/Cruz/Jeb drop out, they can overtake Trump. However, I don't think they drop out any time soon; plus, Carson and Kasich will eventually drop out, and I think Trump is the guy who will get the majority of those voters.
Then, even if Rubio can magically pull out a miracle win, Trump is assuredly going to blame the RNC for stacking crowds against him and runs third party, siphoning a ton of GOP votes away from Rubio. It is a huge problem for them.
shinra-bansho
Member
I wouldn't personally count them, but they're part of the process. And the process currently underway isn't "electing the leader of the free world" it's selecting a candidate to run under a political party's banner.I acknowledge that. But just because a flawed system is continually used doesn't mean it's a good system. I don't like the idea of equating electing the leader of the free world to a game.
Tell that to news outlets that on both Iowa and NH election nights were showing "Delegate Counters" which factored all of Hillary's super delegates in making it look like Sanders was basically buried. I only saw a few that seperated pledged and unpledged delegates, in most situations it was just an ambiguous monochromatic bar.
you also have to realize that Sanders can win the popular vote and still lose the nomination.
As I recall, in 2008 Clinton won the popular vote but Obama won by racking up delegates in low turnout caucuses. He played the game better. She learned from him and is applying those lessons in 2016.
Basileus777
Member
GOP has to be extremely worried right now because of the way this is all panning out.
Yes, if two of the three establishment guys of Rubio/Cruz/Jeb drop out, they can overtake Trump. However, I don't think they drop out any time soon; plus, Carson and Kasich will eventually drop out, and I think Trump is the guy who will get the majority of those voters.
Then, even if Rubio can magically pull out a miracle win, Trump is assuredly going to blame the RNC for stacking crowds against him and runs third party, siphoning a ton of GOP votes away from Rubio. It is a huge problem for them.
Kasich is campaigning in Michigan already. Jeb won't leave before Florida. That vote is going to remain splintered until it is too late. The so called proportional states are not actually that proportional, Trump can get over 50% of the delegates in those states with the numbers he is polling.
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
I don't see Rubio's path to the nomination, I really don't. Especially once Trump wins South Carolina. Let's dispel of this fiction that the "establishment" vote is going to equally disperse to another "establishment" candidate. Like for instance Flroida, that's one of Trump's best states. He is going to run roughshod if he irreparably harms Cruz here. Never since Eulysses S. Grant will the south be set ablaze when Trump reigns supreme March 1st. This race is over.GOP has to be extremely worried right now because of the way this is all panning out.
Yes, if two of the three establishment guys of Rubio/Cruz/Jeb drop out, they can overtake Trump. However, I don't think they drop out any time soon; plus Carson and Kasich will eventually drop out, and I think Trump is the guy who will get the majority of those voters.
Then, even if Rubio can magically pull out a miracle win, Trump is assuredly going to blame te RNC for stacking crowds against him and runs third party, siphoning a ton of GOP votes away from Rubio. It is a huge problem for them.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
like Gore in 2000...
you said nomination
neurosisxeno
Member
you also have to realize that Sanders can win the popular vote and still lose the nomination.
I understand how the system works, begrudgingly. The issue is though, does everyone? Most people clearly don't understand how superdelegates work, and just see that Sanders tied and win handily, but is still trailing. That is the message they are getting, and when it's the "anti-establishment" candidate ending up with less support despite more votes, people especially take notice.
I wouldn't personally count them, but they're part of the process. And the process currently underway isn't "electing the leader of the free world" it's selecting a candidate to run under a political party's banner.
Then throw a "potential" in front of "leader". I personally don't think they should list super delegates until they get close to the convention, because they can shift around, and it gives people the wrong idea going into their primaries. Say Bernie miraculously won Super Tuesday, gets a majority of states, and surprises everyone. Clinton would probably still lead by 500 delegates when you consider superdelegates--that's insane.
Macho Madness
Member
I await the Sanders PUMA group.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Watching Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged and the fate of the world coming down to children's card games seems less ridiculous after thinking about argument from constitution.
FloydtheFathead
Member
Antonin Scalia.. So Al Gore killed him.Well... We know who caused that.
shinra-bansho
Member
If he miraculously wins Super Tuesday support would start shifting. As it stands she has deep support amidst the party she wishes to lead because she's been working for it for decades.
And I am kind of curious if it's a uniquely American thing to link party process with public election. Like, would it shock people how easily David Cameron could cease to be the UK PM. Or the musical chairs of the Australian PM.
And I am kind of curious if it's a uniquely American thing to link party process with public election. Like, would it shock people how easily David Cameron could cease to be the UK PM. Or the musical chairs of the Australian PM.
Basileus777
Member
If he miraculously wins Super Tuesday support would start shifting. As it stands she has deep support amidst the party she wishes to lead because she's been working for it for decades.
And I am kind of curious if it's a uniquely American thing to link party process with public election. Like, would it shock people how easily David Cameron could cease to be the UK PM. Or the musical chairs of the Australian PM.
I think the average American would be pretty surprised at how parliamentary governments work in general. Though some political parties in countries with Presidential systems have primary elections.
like Gore in 2000...
Well... We know who caused that.
Antonin Scalia.. So Al Gore killed him.
Without Scalia, Gore would have been President. If Gore had been President, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. If he hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be no power vacuum leading to the rise of ISIS. Therefore Scalia was responsible for ISIS.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Without Scalia, Gore would have been President. If Gore had been President, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. If he hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be no power vacuum leading to the rise of ISIS. Therefore Scalia was responsible for ISIS.
Bill Clinton should have killed Scalia along with those 300 Afghan women and children /Marco Rubio
Basileus777
Member
Without Scalia, Gore would have been President. If Gore had been President, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. If he hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be no power vacuum leading to the rise of ISIS. Therefore Scalia was responsible for ISIS.
Reagan appointed Scalia to the SC. Thus we can clearly trace this all back to the TPAJAX Project. It's all Eisenhower's fault.
Black Republican
Member
Another poll showing bush in 5th or 6th. Someone throw in the damn towelNew PPP poll for SC:
Trump: 35%
Cruz: 18%
Rubio: 18%
Kasich: 10%
Carson: 7%
Jeb: 7%
Hillary: 55%
Bernie: 34%
African Americans are starting to feel the bern a bit:
http://www.thestate.com/news/politi...s-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article60547281.html
with another 12 days till the Dem primary, Bernie has a good chance to close the gap a little more with the 13% undecided
Macho Madness
Member
I was thinking up some hypotheticals today about how the election could go. In the scenario where Bernie wins the nomination and loses by a landslide, would you see changes in the Democratic party's nomination process? Any leadership changes?
FloydtheFathead
Member
This is why Al Gore is a hero.Without Scalia, Gore would have been President. If Gore had been President, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. If he hadn't invaded Iraq, there would be no power vacuum leading to the rise of ISIS. Therefore Scalia was responsible for ISIS.
He didn't let Scalia keep getting away with it
It's deliberately not a democratic process because they learned that letting it be a purely democratic process led to terrible outcomes in the '70s and beyond.But that's not how the system works. Ideally the system would rewards equal representation based on voters desires--that's not what is happening. I realize we're not a representative democracy, but you can't claim it's a democratic process when the powers that be can just give support to whomever they want. How can Bernie and Hillary tie in IA, and he blows her out in NH, and she still has more delegates (not even counting unpledged delegates from other states, of which she has like 350)?
We can't tell people every vote is important and then the Democratic Party just ignores them.
The system deliberately slows the momentum of a guy like Sanders. This is a good thing.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
.@TedCruz The media criticizes me for vowing to carpet bomb ISIS. "Well, the objective is to make them dead."
Not sure if moron, relying on morons, war criminal, or some combination.
https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/699383587347402753
Reagan appointed Scalia to the SC. Thus we can clearly trace this all back to the TPAJAX Project. It's all Eisenhower's fault.
Mitochondrial Eve has a lot to answer for.
User 463088
Banned
Not sure if moron, relying on morons, war criminal, or some combination.
Yes.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
PPP did SC assuming only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio:
Trump: 40%
Cruz: 28%
Rubio: 22%
... This seems about what it would be in most states to be honest? I think the "fields narrows, Trump struggles" narrative may not be that accurate since this is how the field will probably narrow (the Jeb dream is dead)
Trump: 40%
Cruz: 28%
Rubio: 22%
... This seems about what it would be in most states to be honest? I think the "fields narrows, Trump struggles" narrative may not be that accurate since this is how the field will probably narrow (the Jeb dream is dead)
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
Yep. Exactly, as long as it is a three person race, it's over.PPP did SC assuming only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio:
Trump: 40%
Cruz: 28%
Rubio: 22%
... This seems about what it would be in most states to be honest? I think the "fields narrows, Trump struggles" narrative may not be that accurate since this is how the field will probably narrow (the Jeb dream is dead)
PPP did SC assuming only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio:
Trump: 40%
Cruz: 28%
Rubio: 22%
... This seems about what it would be in most states to be honest? I think the "fields narrows, Trump struggles" narrative may not be that accurate since this is how the field will probably narrow (the Jeb dream is dead)
I think the idea is that the RNC would focus all of their efforts behind one person, and that would theoretically be the difference.
RastaMentality
Banned
Cruz has no point to not keep going if there's no clear winner and the establishment has to be present, so...Yep. Exactly, as long as it is a three person race, it's over.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
If he miraculously wins Super Tuesday support would start shifting. As it stands she has deep support amidst the party she wishes to lead because she's been working for it for decades.
And I am kind of curious if it's a uniquely American thing to link party process with public election. Like, would it shock people how easily David Cameron could cease to be the UK PM. Or the musical chairs of the Australian PM.
Well its kinda the whole way the system was formed before the parties.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
yo, that's some heavy shit, even if it was sarcasmBill Clinton should have killed Scalia along with those 300 Afghan women and children /Marco Rubio
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
PPP did SC assuming only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio:
Trump: 40%
Cruz: 28%
Rubio: 22%
... This seems about what it would be in most states to be honest? I think the "fields narrows, Trump struggles" narrative may not be that accurate since this is how the field will probably narrow (the Jeb dream is dead)
Haha at Rubio. RNC still ignoring the fact that the base is so fed up with the establishment that they don't want any of the traditional guys.
As I said the other day, this is the first time I have ever seen lifelong conservatives passing around anti-big business/GOP stuff on Facebook. It is bizarre.
eBay Huckster
Member
Joe Lieberman?Well... We know who caused that.
PPP did SC assuming only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio:
Trump: 40%
Cruz: 28%
Rubio: 22%
... This seems about what it would be in most states to be honest? I think the "fields narrows, Trump struggles" narrative may not be that accurate since this is how the field will probably narrow (the Jeb dream is dead)
Trump just can't lose this thing!
PPP did SC assuming only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio:
Trump: 40%
Cruz: 28%
Rubio: 22%
... This seems about what it would be in most states to be honest? I think the "fields narrows, Trump struggles" narrative may not be that accurate since this is how the field will probably narrow (the Jeb dream is dead)
Holy shit. We are getting close to this train running away.
Found this video of Srinivasan giving the keynote speech at the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala.
Gives you a sense of his charisma and wit. A man that even Ted Cruz could be friends with.
Gives you a sense of his charisma and wit. A man that even Ted Cruz could be friends with.
At Srinivasans confirmation hearing, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, now a presidential candidate, described himself as a long-standing friend dating back to their time together as law clerks in the U.S. appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia.
Cruz said Srinivasan had done a very fine job in answering the committees questions.
During his nomination to the appeals court, prominent Republicans such as former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson supported Srinivasan. At his 2013 investiture, leading lights of the legal establishment from both parties praised him. Federal appeals court judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee for whom Srinivasan was also a law clerk, called him lightning smart.
So far on the appeals court, his rulings have not sparked controversy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.