Support NeoGAF

[Holmes]

ARGH my grandparents invited me and my husband to dinner literally 2 hours beforehand. CAN THEY NOT INVITE US A DAY AHEAD OF TIME? Seems like I'll probably not be in chat tonight.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

NY DEM EXIT POLL: 13% of voters would not vote for Clinton in general; 18% of voters would not vote for Sanders in general

SO at least a 5 point gap for Clinton?

I don't know how to read these things.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

what a swerve

I wanted to take an exit poll

I'm a middle class white millennial, first time voter. I'm also addicted to Reddit. I am prime Bernie territory, so I wanted to swerve the polls a bit.

But nobody cares about my dinky area. There were 2 pages of Democrat voters. No lines. In some random church in a residential area surrounded on one side with poverty and another with upper middle class households. It's a weird neighborhood.

Also I liked how a lady came in and was made she had to vote Republican. She didn't want to. She said she hated them all, but missed the deadline to change.

 

[royalan]

NY DEM EXIT POLL: 13% of voters would not vote for Clinton in general; 18% of voters would not vote for Sanders in general

That's a first. Damn.

I'm starting to feel like this is going to be a bloodbath.

 

[B-Dubs]

Goddamn, look at Trump's polling place. It looks so fucking classy and luxurious compared to mine, which was an elementary school gym. Where the hell did he go vote? A law office?

 

[aspiegamer]

Thank you, PS4 remote play on PC, for allowing me to amuse myself on two different levels at the same time tonight after results start coming in.

What on earth is that woman in the dark blue dress on CNN wearing? It looks like a hilariously stereotypical video game nonfunctional women's armor design.

48% of Dem voters would like to generally continue Obama's policies

That's almost... low? It was 52% in Wisconsin, with 34% for more liberal. This is almost the only statistic in the exit polling that seems to favor Sanders.

Edit: Trump is on at 9EDT? Mysteriously at poll closing time? Way to grab attention. This is proper Trump again.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Bernie Sanders is the first candidate in the three (counting this one) presidential races I have been eligible to vote for, who has inspired me to get out and vote. For the first time in my life, I now have a ticket to sit and complain about government without trying to hide the fact I have never voted.

Thank you Bernie Sanders, you're an inspiration to us all.

Btw, +1 for Hillary in Monroe County.

 

[Cybit]

It looks like he plagiarized an article from the Daily Beast. He then started defending himself, and somehow ended up blaming Chelsea Clinton for it.

...wait how did Chelsea Clinton get brought into garden variety plagiarism?

I agree that six months is pretty long and 2-1 month deadlines is fare more reasonable that makes sure

1) People who are interested in the party have a chance to get everything in order
2) If you want a closed primary only people from the party who are interested get to vote if you want that.

That being said, the idea that this was designed to disenfranchise people and bla bla bla is silly.

Also I hope Adam isn't perma, I enjoy his sas or what ever you call it and wish to see it continue in the general election

Eh, it's disenfranchising, period. It's designed to make it harder for newer voters, harder for younger voters. If it were Clinton supporters being hurt by this and Bernie supporters were fine, I don't think everyone would be so dismissive. Point blank: if you intend to run a democracy, or a representative democracy, or a republic - you should be making it as easy as possible for those who are allowed to vote to be able to vote. Hell, I'm in the mandatory voting camp, even if you leave an option to "abstain" in the voting booth, and properly improve the electoral infrastructure to accommodate such a change easily.

Hopefully Adam makes it back - the sass was always good to read.

 

[The Technomancer]

I mean, I was pissed that Colorado closed registration months in advance back during that primary. I complained about it like...three times. Meh

 

[Y2Kev]

I'm phone banking in my office. Just got an old lady to leave and go vote for queen.

 

[B-Dubs]

...wait how did Chelsea Clinton get brought into garden variety plagiarism?

I honestly could not tell you.

 

[besada]

Also I hope Adam isn't perma, I enjoy his sas or what ever you call it and wish to see it continue in the general election

It's not. He's just taking a little break. He'll be back looooong before Ekai

 

[kirblar]

SO at least a 5 point gap for Clinton?

I don't know how to read these things.

The "continue Obama's policies" question indicates she's winning this quite easily.

 

[StopMakingSense]

...wait how did Chelsea Clinton get brought into garden variety plagiarism?

Because she's on the board of the DB's parent company.

Really.

 

[Kangi]

<.>

 

[studyguy]

...wait how did Chelsea Clinton get brought into garden variety plagiarism?

Says she's part of the board on The Daily Beast or something?
I saw the tweet, laughed then closed the app.

Oh it was the parent company?
Pfft

 

[Cybit]

That's the same prediction as the lord Tyler....can it be, could Tyler be here in the flesh!?

If I had predicted Michigan like that; I would have made a killing on PredictIt and retired. So, alas, no. (Plus, I'm too old to do shit like build algorithms off of social media and facebook likes and whatever other stuff he apparently does)

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I'm phone banking in my office. Just got an old lady to leave and go vote for queen.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Dave Wasserman &#8207;@Redistrict
This week, @CookPolitical will be moving #MN03 Paulsen (R) from Likely R to Lean R. Dems scored strong recruit in state Sen. Terri Bonoff.

woop

 

[Brinbe]

Every piece of news coming in is encouraging. Officially getting my hopes up!

 

[B-Dubs]

Because she's on the board of the DB's parent company.

Really.

But what about when he plagiarized from 538? Who did he blame for that?

If I had predicted Michigan like that; I would have made a killing on PredictIt and retired. So, alas, no. (Plus, I'm too old to do shit like build algorithms off of social media and facebook likes and whatever other stuff he apparently does)

I get tempted to try my hand at building a statistical model, but I'd have to do all my math by hand on a piece of paper since I'm no good at coding.

 

[Future Foundation]

...wait how did Chelsea Clinton get brought into garden variety plagiarism?

She's, and I'm quoting Shaun King here, "on the board of the parent company of The Daily Beast. They ride HARD for Hillary. Sure that played a role."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I guess this depends on if your goal is getting "the correct people" voting, or getting every citizen voting.

I want democrats voting, not people who aren't dems

 

[NeoXChaos]

Ekai got banned again? Just came back too.

 

[Macho Madness]

18% made their decision in the last few days, 82% in the weeks before that.

New York: "60% think Clinton is Honest and Trustworthy."

18% made their decision in the last few days, 82% in the weeks before that.

 

[PBY]

Does the Bernie thing end tonight?

It kind of has to right....?

 

[Suikoguy]

I'm more convinced Garland is a good choice after listening to the NPR piece on his work on the Oklahoma City Bombing case. People concerned about civil liberties should be pretty happy with the choice at least.

Text form of the piece:

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/19/47468...a-city-merrick-garland-forged-the-way-forward

 

[eBay Huckster]

New York: "60% think Clinton is Honest and Trustworthy."

that seems significantly higher than, like, every other state so far

 

[kirblar]

It looks like he plagiarized an article from the Daily Beast. He started defending himself, saying he was using direct quotes, and somehow ended up blaming Chelsea Clinton for it.

EDIT: I dunno how everyone feels about Mediaite, but they've got the story.

I'm so glad people are finally realizing what kinda guy he is. (Nothing to do with his politics, everything to do with him.)

 

[StopMakingSense]

Im going 60+1 for Hills.

 

[8 X 11 Printer Paper]

18% made their decision in the last few days, 82% in the weeks before that.

New York: "60% think Clinton is Honest and Trustworthy."

18% made their decision in the last few days, 82% in the weeks before that.

The 60% stat is quite big....I don't remember a single previous exit poll having her anywhere near that high.

 

[Metaphoreus]

They're *already* appointed by partisans though. Anyway, I did not think that your suggestion was that justices must act in a certain way, my point was that some alarm bells should be going off when we are talking about codifying an ideological balance/deadlock. When I used the word principles I was talking more generally in terms of what the Constitution represents, not that it explicitly bars such a proposal (though Art 2 Sec 2 would seem to run counter to your particular solutions, at least in spirit). The Supreme Court was never intended to be foremost an abstractly fair or unbiased body, it was intended to be a final and decisive adjudicator above all else.

The number of holes and inconsistencies with this kind of "solution" is immeasurable. Again, the stated motivation for this proposal is to prevent partisan actors from screwing up an intentional deadlock at the Supreme Court. That means you have to presume that partisan actors will work to circumvent the deadlock, so your solution has to be able to stop bad actors. But your solution is contingent on the non-existence of the very problem we're trying to solve.

Even putting aside the problem of why partisan actors would enact rules and policies that would prevent them from acting in a partisan fashion, how does this even prevent those actions in the first place? First, we have the problem that they're rules and not laws. So any future Senate majority can simply erase them. Second, we have the problem of how to define the relationship between parties and nominees. Who "owns" Kennedy's seat and how do we resolve a dispute over that ownership? Is the balance of the court determined by the ideology of the actual Justices or the ideology of the parties in the Senate? The latter does nothing to stop the Justices from being unbalanced, and the former doesn't resolve candidates whose ideologies are not easily classified.

Hell, what happens if the future makeup of the Senate is neither Democratic nor Republican because of the formation of new political parties? Do the few remaining Democratic and Republican Senators get to decide who can be considered for Supreme Court positions because they "own" them? How do we even handle the emergence of a new political party in terms of ideological balance? Do we have to expand or shrink the court and make each party have equal representation? How large does a party have to be in order to merit ownership of a Supreme Court seat? Does the Tea Party get a distinct seat separate from Republicans in general?

Next, you say "consider" instead of "confirm". So let's say Justice Thomas dies and Democrats control the Senate but Republicans control the Presidency. The Democrats could conform to these rule and "consider" a Republican nominee, then simply refuse to hold a vote, or to hold a vote and refuse to confirm. So we'd basically be in the situation we're already facing where the Senate does nothing and the balance of the Court changes on its own.

And what about the nominee themselves? Suppose the Republican president wishes to appoint a Justice who the majority of their party in the Senate does not support but whom a majority of Democrats would support. Are we now going to say that the Republican president should be barred from nominating the candidate of their choice because the majority of the Senate minority opposes it? How do we reconcile such rules and complications with the President's explicit power to nominate in Article 2 Section 2? Such Senate rules would be a clear encroachment on said right even if they don't directly interfere with it.

One more example as I could keep going on and on. Say the minority party or the party who owns the vacant seat supports a nominee who otherwise disturbs the deadlocked balance, that is, the President puts forward a liberal/conservative justice that would put the court at 5-3. What mechanism do we have in place to prevent a stupid or naive party from unbalancing the court?

You're right; I haven't thought through all the issues. On the other hand, I only just read the proposal a few hours ago. You provide plenty of food for thought here, which I appreciate.

(For what it's worth, I don't think any Art. II, s. 2 issues are raised by my suggestions. The president remains free to nominate whomever he pleases, but the Senate is free to do as it pleases with those nominees. I do think it would be improper to restrict the Senate's conduct in confirming nominees by statute, however, since the Constitution gives the Senate power over its own rules. That's why I limited myself to the rules rather than statute. I do recognize the weakness in that proposal, though.)

The fact that this proposal is only being discussed in the wake of Scalia's death is not imaginary. Knowing your historical viewpoints and posting patterns and the fact that you have never brought up such an idea in this community in all these years despite your focus on Supreme Court related subjects is not imaginary. That you give no serious analysis to the problems associated with actually enforcing such a solution is not imaginary (putting aside the issue of enacting it). I go back and forth on giving you the benefit of the doubt a lot of the time, but you burn those inclinations more often than not.

But this is garbage. Here, you're trying to turn the discussion from the substance of the proposal into an ad hominem. I don't appreciate that. Just as I can point to no evidence that I supported a proposal like this in the past, neither can you point to any evidence that I opposed a proposal like this in the past. (And I doubt you can point to any evidence that you've opposed a proposal like this in the past, for that matter.) This isn't a good faith effort to advance the conversation; it's an arational effort to dissuade someone from participating in a discussion by questioning his motives.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

so the watch party I was going to was supposed to by non-partisian. Its now become bernies offical watch party. Even the organizers don't know whats up.

He just took over a party two other groups were having.

 

[Kangi]

Ekai got banned again? Just came back too.

That's generally what happens when you come back from a ban and immediately start doing what got you banned again.

See: Tesseract ( =( )

 

[blackaroni]

Does the Bernie thing end tonight?

It kind of has to right....?

No way. This is gonna be a record fundraising night for Brooklyn Bernie.

 

[Officerrob]

NY DEM EXIT POLL: 13% of voters would not vote for Clinton in general; 18% of voters would not vote for Sanders in general

Idiots, all of them

 

[QuiteWhittle]

that seems significantly higher than, like, every other state so far

I don't think so actually. 59% of Dem voters in Wisconsin thought Clinton was trustworthy, IIRC

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm more convinced Garland is a good choice after listening to the NPR piece on his work on the Oklahoma City Bombing case. People concerned about civil liberties should be pretty happy with the choice at least.

Text form of the piece:

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/19/47468...a-city-merrick-garland-forged-the-way-forward

Yea, he seems like a good pick. The guy's not perfect, but he's a damn sight better than Scalia.

so the watch party I was going to was supposed to by non-partisian. Its now become bernies offical watch party. Even the organizers don't know whats up.

He just took over a party two other groups were having.

Ugh, that sucks.

 

[TheAbsolution]

Just saw on CNN that Bernie plans on having his rally at 7 tonight. That says it all really. Well, that and the fact that he's not in NY.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I don't think so actually. 59% of Dem voters in Wisconsin thought Clinton was trustworthy, IIRC

oh right, i keep forgetting the state that can't win rose bowls voted already

 

[cartoon_soldier]

@SteveKornacki
NY Dem electorate (first wave of exits):

White 62%
Black 21%
Latino 13%
Asian 1%

Let's go QUEEEN

 

[ivysaur12]

18% made their decision in the last few days, 82% in the weeks before that.

New York: "60% think Clinton is Honest and Trustworthy."

18% made their decision in the last few days, 82% in the weeks before that.

Oh man.

 

[Macho Madness]

I don't think so actually. 59% of Dem voters in Wisconsin thought Clinton was trustworthy, IIRC

Yeah. What's been weird is these exit poll numbers haven't been far off from... Wisconsin.

But they've also been close to Florida.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[NeoXChaos]

Steve Kornacki &#8207;@SteveKornacki 8m8 minutes ago
NY exit: Has this campaign energized/divided your party?

Dems
68% energized
27% divided

GOP
Energized 39%
Divided 57%

welp

 

[balladofwindfishes]

18% made their decision in the last few days, 82% in the weeks before that.

New York: "60% think Clinton is Honest and Trustworthy."

18% made their decision in the last few days, 82% in the weeks before that.

Oh jeez, between this and the African American turnout, Bernie is going to get absolutely crushed in NY. He's had a rough couple weeks.

 

[Jimmy King]

No way. This is gonna be a record fundraising night for Brooklyn Bernie.

All my Brooklyn friends are struggling though. Maybe if they can monetize tweets and instagram likes.

 

[Iolo]

That's almost... low? It was 52% in Wisconsin, with 34% for more liberal. This is almost the only statistic in the exit polling that seems to favor Sanders.

Honestly every time exit polls come out we try to read the tea leaves in this way, with very little success. That's why exit polls are so silly (and so exciting).

Also note that these exit polls are taken with over 4 hours left of voting.

 

[And_Gignac]

NY DEM EXIT POLL: 13% of voters would not vote for Clinton in general; 18% of voters would not vote for Sanders in general

these hillarymen, smh. C'mon Vox, bring us the think pieces!

 

[B-Dubs]

Is this guy on CNN's phone ringing?

welp

God bless Trump's insane, megalomaniacal, black as coal, heart.

 

[Future Foundation]

Oh, hi Katy Tur.