• 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.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT5| Archdemon Hillary Clinton vs. Lice Traffic Jam

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd love to be wrong, but based on Indiana results and Bernie consistently outperforming polls in mostly-white states, I'd expect Bernie to win both tonight.

OR: Bernie +6
KY: Bernie +2

Indiana was a state that demographically he should have won. He won it by 538's original projection of how things would look in a national tie.

Kentucky is a state they had as a coin toss (1 delegate victory to Sanders) in a national tie... and you're talking about an open primary vs a closed one.

Indiana wasn't a surprise demographically that's why I'm saying Clinton takes Kentucky. It's easier to predict closed primaries, and unlike Sanders (who has failed to win a single state 538 had Clinton pegged as winning at the start of this) Clinton has won a number of states she was projected to lose by a single delegate based on her 538 targets.

I think we're looking at another Ohio, Connecticut or Tennessee personally.
 

VRMN

Member
How do you mean the dems would and could choose all sides?
If you can flip registrations day of, the argument is that Democrats could switch to GOP to mess with their primary in states where they largely outnumber Republican voters. I think that fear is overblown, but the GOP has it and unilateral opening of one primary but not the other isn't going to happen. Party registration means nothing.

In related news, Cruz wants all GOP primaries to go closed because he thinks open primaries are what allowed Trump to win.
 
If you can flip registrations day of, the argument is that Democrats could switch to GOP to mess with their primary in states where they largely outnumber Republican voters. I think that fear is overblown, but the GOP has it and unilateral opening of one primary but not the other isn't going to happen. Party registration means nothing.

In related news, Cruz wants all GOP primaries to go closed because he thinks open primaries are what allowed Trump to win.

He also wants delegates to be able to refrain from voting for who they are supposed to if they strongly oppose the beliefs of the candidate they are supposed to be voting for.

Because he is a maniac who gives two fucks about democracy.
 

Drakeon

Member
Indiana was a state that demographically he should have won. He won it by 538's original projection of how things would look in a national tie.

Kentucky is a state they had as a coin toss (1 delegate victory to Sanders) in a national tie... and you're talking about an open primary vs a closed one.

Indiana wasn't a surprise demographically that's why I'm saying Clinton takes Kentucky. It's easier to predict closed primaries, and unlike Sanders (who has failed to win a single state 538 had Clinton pegged as winning at the start of this) Clinton has won a number of states she was projected to lose by a single delegate based on her 538 targets.

I think we're looking at another Ohio, Connecticut or Tennessee personally.

Well, he did win Michigan, so that's not totally accurate.

And I'd love to be wrong, but based on the lack of polls, it's hard to be certain of anything going into tonight for OR or KY.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Considereding the limited exposure that this community had regarding the convention on Saturday, I'm going to post what I posted from the OT thread...


Let me first preface this post by saying that I do not condone the egregious and violent acts of the Bernie extremists who were clearly over the line with their behavior with regard to their harassment and intimidation toward state officials (most of this took place after the convention). They should be held responsible for their actions under the fullest extent of the law. I should also state that I would be totally fine with a change of rules during the convention to allow the delegate count to reflect the popular vote of the original caucus, so long as that decision is made by at least a 2/3's majority of the body (per the original rules for temporary changes). Considering how shitty the caucus process is, a change to reflect the popular vote seems totally fair and appropriate to me.

Having said that, the complaints brought forth by the NSDP are nearly a complete fabrication of the events that took place DURING the convention (what happened after the convention is a different story). The convention was documented in its entirety with the corroboration of multiple eye witnesses through the use of periscope, and at no point did any group of people press against the dais. After all, the dais was laden with security detail for the majority of the event. Furthermore, while there were vulgarities and obscenities thrown out from time to time, it did not remotely reflect the general conduct at the convention for most of the duration of the meeting. I've personally reviewed hours of recordings of the convention, spanning from its commencement to its conclusion, and I can say that most of what the NSDP has asserted in that letter is patently false, and nearly anyone who was present at the event or watching it on periscope would agree with me. Even Hillary supporters present at the convention can attest to this.

Now, here's a clear, concise video revealing what ACTUALLY happened:

https://youtu.be/LmWt4aCTRG0

Here's a timeline of what happened:


https://m.reddit.com/r/SandersForPr...ada_democratic_convention_mega_thread/d36591z

The main issue here isn't that a recount wasn't conducted, or that Bernie supporters didn't get their way; Hillary should have won, plain and simple. The issue here is a complete violation of state party rules:

- Meeting was convened before scheduled time and rules were changed before a representative majority could even be assembled (this would be like accepting election results before the polls closed)

- Minority report that challenged the commission's report was not investigated before final decisions were made

- Points of Order went completely unacknowledged

- Motions were left on the floor at the conclusion of the convention

Anyone who knows anything about parliamentary procedure knows that the points above are clear violations of procedure, which would be fine if the NSDP rules were some kind of exception, but they're not.

All current evidence points to misconduct on behalf of both the NSDP and Sanders supporters. This is not even remotely one-sided and anyone suggesting as much is using logic that quite literally flies in the face of overwhelming evidence.

As someone who did not pay close attention to this at the time, this is not very helpful to me. I see lots of complaints about process but I'm not left with any sense of what each side was actually trying to do.

I don't really know what matters at state conventions other than finalizing how many bound delegates each candidate is going to get at the national convention. Googling around it looks like the result of this convention is that Clinton got 7 additional delegates and Sanders got 5. Like other states Nevada is doing this three-way split with its bound delegates between district-level delegates, at-large delegates, and PLEOs. Clinton won Nevada 52.64% to 47.29%, so she should get 4 of the 7 at-large, and 3 of the 5 PLEOs. This appears to be what actually happened, so it's not clear to me why I should care about these process complaints.

I think the complaint here from the Sanders people is about how they managed to game the system well enough at the county or maybe district level or something that if everything else had worked out in the normal way they would have had more votes at this state convention and would have been able to get Sanders more at-large and PLEO bound delegates than his results in the actual election suggest he should get. The people running the convention took steps to prevent Sanders supporters from being able to leverage whatever they did at the lower-level conventions into gains at the national convention. So now the Sanders people are saying that it's wrong not to let them have that out-sized say due to what they were able to do at the lower-level conventions.

In general I feel like there are two positions that you can take on this sort of letter-of-the-law versus spirit-of-the-law thing that aren't going to immediately come across as really self-serving. You can take the position that the rules are intended to produce a particular sort of outcome and if it happens that slavish adherence to the rules is moving you away from that outcome you can bend them a bit to get the right kind of result. Here I think it's obvious that "the right kind of result" is national delegates in each category that align with the actual election results - the point of all this conventioning is to select specific delegates and not to determine how many delegates each candidate gets.

You can also take the position that it's unrealistic to expect opposing sides in a zero-sum game to agree on what the spirit of the rules is and especially on what sorts of bending of the rules are reasonable, so that anything goes as long as it's technically within the rules. If there's a disagreement about an application of the rules, there's a process within the rules for dispute resolution.

If what's going on here is that the Sanders people are complaining that the people in a position to authoritatively interpret and apply the rules favored Clinton and used that position to wipe out whatever advantage they thought they'd won at lower-level conventions, then even if this is true it strikes me as trying to have it both ways. Like, the outcome here looks perfectly reasonable given the election results and the complaint appears to just be that the Clinton side was able to use their own dirty tricks to balance out the Sanders side's earlier dirty tricks. So I don't really see why I should care, but maybe I'm missing something.
 
FWIW, New Mexico PPP poll:

Obama won by 10 in 2012.
http://nmpoliticalreport.com/44100/clinton-leads-in-nm-in-three-way-race/

New Mexico General Election:
@ppppolls 5/13-15

Clinton (D) 41% (+8)
Trump (R) 33%
Johnson (L) 14%

NM GE:
@ppppolls

Among DEM:
Clinton 67%
Trump 11
Johnson 10

GOP:
Trump 62
Johnson 16
Clinton 14

independents:
Clinton 31
Trump 25
Johnson 19

New Mexico General Election
@ppppolls

Among Hispanic:
Clinton 56%
Trump 19%
Johnson 19%

Among white:
Trump 47%
Clinton 29%
Johnson 14%
 

Teggy

Member
How do the Oregon votes get counted/reported? Are they able to tally with mail still coming in today? Do votes have a postmark due date so that they could even come after today?
 

PBY

Banned
I just think there's a better way guys, and that the upside of more registration outweighs the harms (although theres gotta be data/studies on this right?)

You'd have to implement controls though - maybe after party registration, you can't switch/deregister within a month or so. I dunno.
 
I just want to point out that if you're on the Bernie side of the room, then the Bernie shouts are going to sound louder because the distance to a sound source is inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the intensity.
 
Well, he did win Michigan, so that's not totally accurate.

And I'd love to be wrong, but based on the lack of polls, it's hard to be certain of anything going into tonight for OR or KY.

538's delegate targets had Sanders winning Michigan. From day one. Clinton and Sanders both hit their targets. He was demographically expected to win. Bad polling made people think Clinton was going to win, but it always looked like a state that favored Sanders demographically.

It was only seen as an upset because the polling was so off.
 

Zornack

Member
How do the Oregon votes get counted/reported? Are they able to tally with mail still coming in today? Do votes have a postmark due date so that they could even come after today?

You had to have mailed your ballot by the third. Past that you have to drop it off.
 

studyguy

Member
Isn't Kentucky like a SUPER CLOSED primary like NYC? I heard it's deadline was fucking ages ago for registering for a party or am I thinking of the wrong state?
 

kess

Member
I mean, let's be clear about this: Almost the entire GOP other than Lindsey Graham is supporting a man that wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States. This is really happening.

And yet, all we'll hear from Bernie and Trump supporters is how this election is about integrity.
 

dramatis

Member
With a Hillary +7 wave we certainly could have.

I'm really disappointed so many moderate Republicans who were horrified by Trump seem to be coming home.
That's the problem, isn't it.

There's this feeling that Republican voters always fall in line while Democratic voters are idiots, which is why we keep losing.
 

Teggy

Member
I mean, let's be clear about this: Almost the entire GOP other than Lindsey Graham is supporting a man that wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States. This is really happening.

Didn't Trump just tweet the other day that Graham called him and they had a "great" conversation?
 

ampere

Member
Damn, if this election is only +2 Hillary, we aren't getting the House.

I don't think we can get the House even if the margin gets a bit bigger, which I expect it will. Gerrymandering is very hard to beat without huge margins

I just want to point out that if you're on the Bernie side of the room, then the Bernie shouts are going to sound louder because the distance to a sound source is inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the intensity.

This, among other reasons, is why a voice vote is comically bad
 

pigeon

Banned
If what's going on here is that the Sanders people are complaining that the people in a position to authoritatively interpret and apply the rules favored Clinton and used that position to wipe out whatever advantage they thought they'd won at lower-level conventions, then even if this is true it strikes me as trying to have it both ways. Like, the outcome here looks perfectly reasonable given the election results and the complaint appears to just be that the Clinton side was able to use their own dirty tricks to balance out the Sanders side's earlier dirty tricks. So I don't really see why I should care, but maybe I'm missing something.

Yeah, I mostly agree with this, and I think it's a solid post.

I think you can either argue that the letter of the rules was subverted or that the spirit of the rules was subverted.

Everybody seems to agree that the eventual delegate outcome reflected the will of the voters (which I feel like is even just factual so how would you disagree). So I think the "spirit of the rules" argument is kind of dead in the water.

So the argument seems to be about the letter of the rules. This is fine but, as I posted in the other thread, I think that people have just misunderstood the rules, and also I feel like it's a fundamentally weaker argument to say that even though things worked out for the best you are still mad about the process by which things worked out for the best, and then go on to argue that people should subvert the process to make things work out in your favor. Again, it strikes me as taking whatever argument is most effective for Bernie in a given situation, rather than actually having clear and supportable principles!
 

Maledict

Member
People need to remember that Kentucky Democrats are not the same as say, New York democrats. Many of them are still registered as D from 30 years ago but have been voting Republican for the last 20 years. They loathe Clinton, and will happily cast a vote for anyone who isn't her.

I expect Sanders to take both - Oregon by 15 or so, Kentucky by 10. It won't mean anything, but the narrative about "momentum" will continue, and the rest of the world will look on with horror as America inches closer to electing a racist, lying narcissist clown as president.
 
What leads you to feel that the likes of Kim Davis would vote for Sanders, one of the least religious persons in the senate?

lmao this post is ludicrous

If Kim Davis is a Democrat, I highly doubt she would vote for the Jewish socialist over the Christian moderate. The only bigots Bernie succeeds with are disgruntled, irreligious workers or students who are more sexist than they are anti-Semitic.

Based on your standard, why would Sanders have the edge on it, then?

It's just like WV. Those are voters who're too lazy to change their registrations since they were historically similar to Dixiecrats. They vote Republican in the GE, always will. Their votes in the primary (which is the only primary they can participate in) reflect who they hate more, not who they like.

I'll be surprised if she wins it.
 
I don't think we can get the House even if the margin gets a bit bigger, which I expect it will. Gerrymandering is very hard to beat without huge margins

I had read that somewhere between D +6 and +7 would do it. I was pretty optimistic about hitting that margin, honestly. These last few polls have been sobering.

Hopefully when (if? It's gotta be when, right?) Bernie starts campaigning for Hillary, the margin will increase.
 
Quite right. I guess I should have made that clearer.



No. (See avatar for hint.)

As someone who only pays a little attention to the Supreme Court, Scalia always seemed like a hack, so I'm not sure why you liked him so much (if that is what your post is sugusting). He changed his line of reasoning to fit the outcome that he personally wanted most. Thomas at least seems more principled.
 
As someone who only pays a little attention to the Supreme Court, Scalia always seemed like a hack, so I'm not sure why you liked him so much (if that is what your post is sugusting). He changed his line of reasoning to fit the outcome that he personally wanted most. Thomas at least seems more principled.

No way, using the 14th amendment in Bush vs. Gore is very originalist.
 
I can't believe the Washington Nationals have a Herbert Hoover among their presidential mascots that race. Herbert G D Hoover. It's Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and out of nowhere, Herbert Hoover. One of these things is not like the other.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I can't believe the Washington Nationals have a Herbert Hoover among their presidential mascots that race. Herbert G D Hoover. It's Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and out of nowhere, Herbert Hoover. One of these things is not like the other.

Well they couldn't very well have FDR in a race now could they?
 

ampere

Member
I had read this somewhere between D +6 and +7 would do it. I was pretty optimistic about hitting that margin, honestly. These last few polls have been sobering.

Hopefully when (if? It's gotta be when, right?) Bernie starts campaigning for Hillary, the margin will increase.

I would assume 6 is too low with current gerrymandering. I see a lot of "Trump could give the House back to the Democrats" type articles, but they don't seem to have polling margin predictions. Looks like we need ~16 seats

I am interested in the prospect of what a third party run by someone like Mittens might do. It would obviously hurt Trump in the GE, but might help the downticket. Not sure
 

HylianTom

Banned
Hmm.. Hillary looks pretty good attacking Trump on the campaign trail. Definitely more comfortable than when she was in primary mode. She even does a Trump impersonation of him giving "details" on his policies.

(Paraphrasing her here) "I'm gonna be great on jobs. I won't tell you how, but I will!"

{I like her Trump voice.}
 
So you're saying Bernie is sanctioning the violence? ;)
I realize you mean condemn

lol, fixed it

Hmm.. Hillary looks pretty good attacking Trump on the campaign trail. Definitely more comfortable than when she was in primary mode. She even does a Trump impersonation of him giving "details" on his policies.

(Paraphrasing her here) "I'm gonna be great on jobs. I won't tell you how, but I will!"

{I like her Trump voice.}

Of course, she had to tiptoe around Sanders to not create unneeded strife in the party. She never actually had to go negative on Sanders, now it's basically open season for her against Trump and can actually attack someone.
 

GutsOfThor

Member
Hmm.. Hillary looks pretty good attacking Trump on the campaign trail. Definitely more comfortable than when she was in primary mode. She even does a Trump impersonation of him giving "details" on his policies.

(Paraphrasing her here) "I'm gonna be great on jobs. I won't tell you how, but I will!"

{I like her Trump voice.}

I'm hoping she continues to attack him on his policies more than anything else. That's where he fails miserably. Make him look like a fool while her surrogates attack his character.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Hmm.. Hillary looks pretty good attacking Trump on the campaign trail. Definitely more comfortable than when she was in primary mode. She even does a Trump impersonation of him giving "details" on his policies.

(Paraphrasing her here) "I'm gonna be great on jobs. I won't tell you how, but I will!"

{I like her Trump voice.}

Oh yes. It's probably because she can finally open up and fire with both barrels. Clinton's probably just happy she can finally take the kid gloves off and bloody up those knuckles.

I'm hoping she continues to attack him on his policies more than anything else. That's where he fails miserably. Make him look like a fool while her surrogates attack his character.

Oh yes. Leave the crotch shots to the SuperPACs and surrogates. She just needs to work the body mercilessly.
 

Ophelion

Member
Oh yes. It's probably because she can finally open up and fire with both barrels. Clinton's probably just happy she can finally take the kid gloves off and bloody up those knuckles.

Oh yes. Leave the crotch shots to the SuperPACs and surrogates. She just needs to work the body mercilessly.

She's been stuck in the political equivalent of a World of Cardboard situation. Finally found that golden opportunity to cut loose.
 

ampere

Member
I mean, I guess the GOP was already a white nationalist party before Trump.

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/732586745481547776

I was gonna say stop wasting time looking at rando bigots on twitter, but that's the governor of Texas. Damn

One of the replies got it right, he needs to:

CiqupUWUkAAB2O4.jpg
 
Hillary gets her big polling bump after the Obama endorsement imo. It'll also cause the Latino number to go up.
Yeah.

Odd thing is Trump's numbers don't seem to be rising so much as Hillary's are just falling. Lot of odd 42-40 kind of results while the undecideds go up.

She'll get a bounce once the primary's over and as you say she gets an Obama endorsement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom