Super Tuesday 2016 |OT| The Final Incursion is a double Incursion (Mar 5-15 contests)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. And Boston Mayor Marty Walsh was entering polling locations as well. So, the question then becomes does Bill Clinton's mere presence in a polling location constitute as campaign materials? Clinton was thanking poll workers, and not approaching voters inside the polls.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/03/01/bill-clinton-massachusetts-voting-laws/

From that article - "Inside the polling location, Clinton purchased a cup of coffee from a bake sale and shook hands with poll workers. When another woman asked for a photo, he said, “As long as we’re not violating any election laws.”

The campaign is cognizant of election laws.

So, I mean, I think this is yet another fake Clinton scandal, but I will say that saying "only if it's legal" before you do something is not, technically, a legal defense if the thing you're doing turns out not to be legal. You are supposed to not do the thing until you know whether it's legal or not.
 
So, I mean, I think this is yet another fake Clinton scandal, but I will say that saying "only if it's legal" before you do something is not, technically, a legal defense if the thing you're doing turns out not to be legal. You are supposed to not do the thing until you know whether it's legal or not.

It's just Bill being genial. No way they planned to appear at polling stations without checking the legality of it first. And at least one of the polling stations should have turned them away if it was.

But it's not, as far as I can tell from the laws.
 
So, I mean, I think this is yet another fake Clinton scandal, but I will say that saying "only if it's legal" before you do something is not, technically, a legal defense if the thing you're doing turns out not to be legal. You are supposed to not do the thing until you know whether it's legal or not.

its 1998 again
 
This logic doesn't follow.
1. Bill X reduces consumer protection for the financially vulnerable.
2. Politician A supports Bill X.
3. Politician A is aligned with Politician B.
4. Politician B is likely to support Bill X.
5. Politician B supports reducing protection for the financially vulnerable.

4 is the iffiest, but given Clinton's past views on banking, is likely to hold true in my view. She'll superficially fight it though. Or recast it as respecting States' independence.
 
Well, I did my duty, and voted in the Texas primary for the Democratic party. The lines were short -- Democratic lines, anyway -- and the parking lot was full of Republican activists trying to sway the Republican primary happening one room over.

But all was quiet in the Democratic Primary voting area, where three old people tried to use one book to figure out who was eligible.

I managed to scribble my vote in and make America safe for democracy one more time.
 
Any word on what the Trump press conference is for? I'm guessing an endorsement of some sort, timed to take any wind out of the sails of Cruz and Rubio.

Oh, and this from earlier, lol...

dXjBrK3.jpg
 
1. Bill X reduces consumer protection for the financially vulnerable.
2. Politician A supports Bill X.
3. Politician A is aligned with Politician B.
4. Politician B is likely to support Bill X.
5. Politician B supports reducing protection for the financially vulnerable.

4 is the iffiest, but given Clinton's past views on banking, is likely to hold true in my view. She'll superficially fight it though. Or recast it as respecting States' independence.

You're condemning Clinton because someone who wants her to win has taken a position you don't like, as if it follows that Clinton must also have the same position. But it doesn't follow.
 
I feel like even if he tried "a little harder" you'd still be here saying he "could have tried harder." What a subjective measurement. It's clearly a strategic decision on his campaigns part. If he gets these states where it's close, they'd rather have the narrative of winning a state versus fighting for a few percentage points in already-lost states.

If he spent SOME money in those states, that would have been an acceptable minimal effort. Spending no money in those states essentially means that he didn't even try.

Sure. I mean, the question needs to take into account your personal judgment of Bernie Sanders's thought process and his goals.

My assessment has always been that Sanders ran originally to change the race, then decided he actually had a chance at winning. I believe he's smart enough to read a poll sheet and that if he decides he doesn't have a chance to win, he will drop out in order to help the Democratic candidate win.

If you have different priors about Bernie (or, I guess, about the state of the race if Bernie loses every state except Vermont today), then you'll probably come to different conclusions. Which is only reasonable.

However, I don't think "Bernie never lies and always says exactly what he means" is a particularly sensible prior to have, so if somebody is trying to analyze the issue based on that, I'm going to be pretty skeptical of their reasoning.

Haha, I'm not delusional enough to think that Bernie never lies or changes his mind. Hell, be may still change his mind!

My reasoning is based on his reasoning that he already provided. Most people who talk about going the distance say so for strategic reasons. Bernie says he's going the distance to be fair to every state so that their voices can be heard. That is a decision based on principle, and since Bernie has shown himself to be a principled man, I believe he'll do it for those reasons. It isn't even about winning or losing at that point, so losing wouldn't change anything.


The amount of Bernie hate in this thread scares me.

LMAO
 
[Cross-posting from PoliGAF]

Voted for Hillary!

At my precinct there was a decent mix of Republicans and Democrats. Couldn't get a feel for who the Republicans were voting for, but all the Democrats in line with me where older Hispanic ladies, so sorry Bernie bros. This was in San Antonio.
 
Why would he dump money into states where he isn't likely to win? I'm not sure why you guys think you are campaign-running experts. He is clearly doing much better than anyone expected.

Conceding them entirely presents a perceptual problem, similar to leaving South Carolina before the votes were full counted. It makes logical sense, but gives the impression that only Northern states matter.

Clinton is probably going to win those Southern states, but she's still advertising because it gives the impression that those voters are still important to her.


When exactly would Sanders be expected to endorse Hillary? Would that be before, during, or after the convention?

Usually, the concession.drop out speech is when the secondary candidate endorses the primary winner.

For example, here's Hillary's exit speech in 2008.
 
not sure how that tests works, but how can someone agree with sanders, clinton, cruz and rubio on immigration? you would think there would be some major differences there.

It doesn't mean a 100% match on that topic, but I think some of the questions were "Should muslims be allowed in the country" so might have matched that
 
It doesn't mean a 100% match on that topic, but I think some of the questions were "Should muslims be allowed in the country" so might have matched that

Cruz actually pproposed legislation trying to ban Muslims. He might actually be worse than Trump regarding Muslims
 
You're condemning Clinton because someone who wants her to win has taken a position you don't like, as if it follows that Clinton must also have the same position. But it doesn't follow.

I recognize that she has supported the idea of the CFPB in the past, but given the opportunity to parse the issue into seeming shades of grey and waffle, she'll do so because of that relationship. It is based on my assessment of that relationship.
 
I wonder if Rubio (and Cruz for that matter) realize they have no chance or if they're deluded enough to think it's still a fight?
 
As good as that one stat was for Trump, this is equally as bad for Sanders...

ABC News Politics ‏@ABCPolitics 4m4 minutes ago
At least 7 in 10 Democratic #SuperTuesday voters want a nominee with experience rather than an outsider: http://abcn.ws/24zGJGN
 
Speaking of DWS, and given that this thread (or maybe that was PoliGAF) delved into discussion of contributions as worthwhile investments for quite a few posts:

What if there was a money bomb for DWS's primary opponent?

(Actually, come to think of it, why doesn't Bernie explicitly endorse that guy?)
 
I wonder if Rubio (and Cruz for that matter) realize they have no chance or if they're deluded enough to think it's still a fight?

Even cuter is how Kasich is still talking so positively.

At least he has said that if you don't win your own state you should drop out, including himself.
 
Fox News ‏@FoxNews

.@johnrobertsFox: “@marcorubio camp already downplaying results tonight.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom