2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

After the next 5 states (Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming) Bernie may have closed up a tiny bit. After that it's dire though with New York on April 19th followed by Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island on the 26th. Looks like around 630 delegates for those 6 states at a glance with half in New York (247) and Maryland (95) where Hillary should win handily. Pennsylvania with 189 is Bernie's last hope to try and reach the "blue-collar" whites. Unfortunately for him all 6 states except Rhode Island are closed primaries. So far there's been 4 closed primaries with Hillary winning Louisiana (71-23), Florida (64-33) and Arizona (58-40) while Sanders has won Democrats abroad (69-31).

I think your read on where things are looks about right. I would say though that I still hold out hope that Sanders will have closed the gap more then a tiny bit. Washington will be key in that regard as it has 101 delegates available. In terms of April 19 Sanders needs an Illinois type performance there. He lost Clinton's home state Illinois but only by 1.8% so in the end the delegate count was 76-73 Clinton for Illinois so not really hurting Sanders. Clinton obviously was a senator for New York so the expectation would be she will win big. But then again that was the expectation with Illinois so we will see. As I said above I think Washington is the key. If Sanders can perform well there and win it then he likely heads into April 19th with the race being back on so to speak on the Democratic side.
Your certainly on the money with Maryland and New York where the latest polls have Clinton up 61-28 in Maryland and 71-23 in New York. Having said that Clinton was up 62-25 in Illinois a week or so before that vote and of course we know how close Illinois ended up being. That is what Sanders needs to aim for in Maryland and New York. If he can do that he keeps himself very much in the race. A very unlikely outcome for sure but he has defied all odds to be in the position he is currently so we will see.

Overheal

Regarding all the Obama hatred, and his "one minute response" to Belgium....

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

Bernie Sanders supporters are having a very hard time accepting that their candidate isn't as popular as they'd like him to be. They have to start making it out like the only reason he isn't going to get the nomination is because of a great conspiracy against him. The 5 points in that article can summarised as follows:

1. Turnout usually isn't high so a sensible decision is made to not open as many polling stations. Turnout ends up being 3 times as high as it normally is.

2. Areas with lower turnouts don't have polling stations.

3. A number of voters were identified as independents. They claimed this was incorrect. They were given provisional ballots so if it turned out that they were actually Democrats their vote would still count.

4. Buildings were evacuated due to a bomb scare.

5. The press called a state that Hillary Clinton was very likely to win for Hillary Clinton.

Your argument defeats itself: if all the data indicated turnout would be low (and that Clinton would win it handily) why was this a problem? Surely the fact that turnout was 3x higher than projections proves that there is something to Bernie Sanders' campaign, and its not unelectability.

BoJack Horseman

Overheal wrote: »

Regarding all the Obama hatred, and his "one minute response" to Belgium....

I love that clip....

the only way it could be better is if he completely wiffed on the shot & swung his club behind him skulling an aide.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Reports out of Arizona are pretty shocking

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

But I imagine you will never hear much outrage from conservative outlets about it, even though they're the first to jump on the "Integrity of Democracy" bandwagon

Although with some obvious differences, this reminds me of the 2000 presidential election where there were an extraordinary number of voting problems in Gov Jeb Bush's Florida (dimpled chads, butterfly ballots, electronic voting machine errors, absentee ballot errors, questionable voter disqualifications, etc., etc.), the swing state that ultimately decided the election in favour of brother GW Bush by a few hundred votes.

K-9

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Not voting for someone due to bigotry, votes Cruz.

Needs to make his mind up there.

With Bush coming out saying vote Cruz it really is getting crazy. Will be interesting to see good analysis pieces on why exactly we've ended up with Trump or Cruz.

Suryavarman

Overheal wrote: »

Your argument defeats itself: if all the data indicated turnout would be low (and that Clinton would win it handily) why was this a problem? Surely the fact that turnout was 3x higher than projections proves that there is something to Bernie Sanders' campaign, and its not unelectability.

I'm not entirely sure why you emboldened those phrases. Hillary Clinton won the state decisively. The first and last excerpts that you emboldened are perfectly correct.

Had the turnout been the same as it always was then there wouldn't have been such long queues. Turnout was far higher than expected. A mistake was made. Despite that high turnout Bernie still lost by a considerable margin.

Bernie Sanders is this cycles Ron Paul. The experts correctly wrote him off months ago. His biased supporters just can't face up to the fact that he doesn't have a chance because most people don't buy into what he is peddling. And much like the "movement" that Ron Paul started, the one Bernie has started will die out by the next election cycle.

K-9

Billy86 wrote: »

As ridiculous as it is that no Trump supporters seem to actually be able say which of his policies and stances they support outside of Muslims and Mexicans, it's probably more pathetic to vote for a politician because another politician told you to. Sure, Cruz would have won easy in Utah, but I think it's fair to say that a good few did so simply because their Magical Underpants wearing leader told them to do it.

I think Trump's comments about going after ISIS has disproved any notions that he would be non interventionist. Of course if that proves unpopular in a weeks time, he'll just deny it and gain support!

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure why you emboldened those phrases. Hillary Clinton won the state decisively. The first and last excerpts that you emboldened are perfectly correct.

Had the turnout been the same as it always was then there wouldn't have been such long queues. Turnout was far higher than expected. A mistake was made. Despite that high turnout Bernie still lost by a considerable margin.

Bernie Sanders is this cycles Ron Paul. The experts correctly wrote him off months ago. His biased supporters just can't face up to the fact that he doesn't have a chance because most people don't buy into what he is peddling. And much like the "movement" that Ron Paul started, the one Bernie has started will die out by the next election cycle.

Hmm thousands of people who didn't get to vote that nobody expected to vote showed up to vote and you think Sanders lost legitimately? He has far more support than Ron Paul ever did

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I still have some hope that the FBI will actually follow through and indite her.

If they FBI "indite" anyone it would be a first. The FBI investigate, the Justice Department indict.

jobbridge4life

Black Swan wrote: »

Although with some obvious differences, this reminds me of the 2000 presidential election where there were an extraordinary number of voting problems in Gov Jeb Bush's Florida (dimpled chads, butterfly ballots, electronic voting machine errors, absentee ballot errors, questionable voter disqualifications, etc., etc.), the swing state that ultimately decided the election in favour of brother GW Bush by a few hundred votes.

The Supreme Court decided that election. They stopped the recount so we will never know how Florida really voted.

Billy86

Didn't FOX get that ball rolling by announcing Bush the winner before the results were even in?

Brian?

Billy86 wrote: »

Didn't FOX get that ball rolling by announcing Bush the winner before the results were even in?

Hard to blame Fox on that one. Every TV news network calls states based on how the count is going. They called it first, but it was still counting. Really had no bearing on the actual result.

As much as I hate Fox, I can't blame them.

JPNelsforearm

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure why you emboldened those phrases. Hillary Clinton won the state decisively. The first and last excerpts that you emboldened are perfectly correct.

Had the turnout been the same as it always was then there wouldn't have been such long queues. Turnout was far higher than expected. A mistake was made. Despite that high turnout Bernie still lost by a considerable margin.

Bernie Sanders is this cycles Ron Paul. The experts correctly wrote him off months ago. His biased supporters just can't face up to the fact that he doesn't have a chance because most people don't buy into what he is peddling. And much like the "movement" that Ron Paul started, the one Bernie has started will die out by the next election cycle.

I would say the Ron Paul movement split into the Tea Party and his son, his son has arguably killed the Paulite wing of the libertarian/Republican wing through his own incompetence and weakness, rather than the "movement" dying of its own accord.
The tea party "libertarian" wing still lives on, allied as it is with the evangelicals, with Ted Cruz being both camps preferred candidate.

Suryavarman

Overheal wrote: »

Hmm thousands of people who didn't get to vote that nobody expected to vote showed up to vote and you think Sanders lost legitimately? He has far more support than Ron Paul ever did

If the results are anything to go by then the majority of those people would have voted for Hillary Clinton. So yes he did lose legitimately.

Bernie Sanders extra support is probably down to the fact that he has very little competition. If it was Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney in 2012 the Republican race would have looked much the same as the Democratic race now.

InTheTrees

Suryavarman wrote: »

Bernie Sanders is this cycles Ron Paul. The experts correctly wrote him off months ago. His biased supporters just can't face up to the fact that he doesn't have a chance because most people don't buy into what he is peddling. And much like the "movement" that Ron Paul started, the one Bernie has started will die out by the next election cycle.

I think it would be closer to say that Bernie Sanders is this cycles Dennis Kucinich, or Gerry Brown. Liberal politics isnt going away after all.

Ron Paul was more like Ralph Nader. A fringe ideology that has never gained much support and that only pops up every four years at election time.

All of them get a lot of support from young voters, fresh and enthusiastic and unaware of how the system actually works.

Overheal

Splitting hairs; because we don't know the scale of how many voters and what demographics and who couldn't get to a booth, the point remains.

It doesn't matter what the result was, the fact that thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands) of citizens who wanted to exercise their right to vote were not allowed to vote. Even if Sanders had won like that, it would have been unjustly served.

eire4

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure why you emboldened those phrases. Hillary Clinton won the state decisively. The first and last excerpts that you emboldened are perfectly correct.

Had the turnout been the same as it always was then there wouldn't have been such long queues. Turnout was far higher than expected. A mistake was made. Despite that high turnout Bernie still lost by a considerable margin.

Bernie Sanders is this cycles Ron Paul. The experts correctly wrote him off months ago. His biased supporters just can't face up to the fact that he doesn't have a chance because most people don't buy into what he is peddling. And much like the "movement" that Ron Paul started, the one Bernie has started will die out by the next election cycle.

Higher turnout had nothing to do with the disgraceful scenes in Arizona. The fact is the supreme court decision to gut the voting rights act meant that the 9 states which it applied to to prevent them discriminating against minorities were free to run their elections any way they wanted without getting prior justice department approval. So what did Arizona officals do for instance in the county that contained Phoenix and a popultion that was 40% minority they reduced the number of polling stations by about 70% from what were available in the 2012 election cycle. Hence the chaos and disgrace we saw on Tuesday night.

Billy86

That's f***ing absurd, and I couldn't believe it to be anything other than intentional if true. Don't know how if effected the outcome bug that's probably the worst part, nobody ever will!

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

If they FBI "indite" anyone it would be a first. The FBI investigate, the Justice Department indict.

A spelling mistake and a misattribution, the ignominy.

For her actions, those that have been revealed to date, anyone else would be looking at a lengthy stay in a federal prison.

Suryavarman

eire4 wrote: »

Higher turnout had nothing to do with the disgraceful scenes in Arizona. The fact is the supreme court decision to gut the voting rights act meant that the 9 states which it applied to to prevent them discriminating against minorities were free to run their elections any way they wanted without getting prior justice department approval. So what did Arizona officals do for instance in the county that contained Phoenix and a popultion that was 40% minority they reduced the number of polling stations by about 70% from what were available in the 2012 election cycle. Hence the chaos and disgrace we saw on Tuesday night.

Any reasonable person can see that turnout being three times its usual level will result in it taking longer to vote. Saying it had nothing to do with it is absolutely ridiculous.

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

Any reasonable person can see that turnout being three times its usual level will result in it taking longer to vote. Saying it had nothing to do with it is absolutely ridiculous.

Which would not have been possible without gutting the Voter Rights Act

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Higher turnout had nothing to do with the disgraceful scenes in Arizona. The fact is the supreme court decision to gut the voting rights act meant that the 9 states which it applied to to prevent them discriminating against minorities were free to run their elections any way they wanted without getting prior justice department approval. So what did Arizona officals do for instance in the county that contained Phoenix and a popultion that was 40% minority they reduced the number of polling stations by about 70% from what were available in the 2012 election cycle. Hence the chaos and disgrace we saw on Tuesday night.

<<< SHAKES HEAD >>>

Seems it simply IS some bad planning decisions on the part of Maricopa County election officials in their cost cutting measures. Apparently the officials decided the rise in early voting gave them an opportunity to cut corners and save money by reducing the number of polling places, and made it possible for county residents to vote in any polling place, not just their precincts. ‘No other county in Arizona reported the kinds of torturous lines that formed up at Maricopa County polling places.’

They simply did not expect such high voter turnout in Maricopa County.

But hey, I guess some would never let the chance slip by in order to scream the mantra of “voting suppression.” :rolleyes:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/2016/03/23/arizona-primary-our-view-we-outraged-long-lines/82152636/

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

If they FBI "indite" anyone it would be a first. The FBI investigate, the Justice Department indict.

A spelling mistake and a misattribution, the ignominy.

For her actions, those that have been revealed to date, anyone else would be looking at a lengthy stay in a federal prison.

It's not a misattribution, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the FBI. I've seen it done so many times it has become ridiculous.

She hasn't been indicted because there is not enough material evidence to indict.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

It's not a misattribution, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the FBI. I've seen it done so many times it has become ridiculous.

She hasn't been indicted because there is not enough material evidence to indict.

I understand the difference in roles, thanks, I failed to catch the mistake before posting.

I would strongly contest your assertion that there is a lack of sufficient evidence. For anyone else, the actions listed would be grounds for criminal charges.

Beyond issues surrounding the legitimacy of maintaining a private server to conduct official business, the act of stepping down classified materials is inexcusable. The fact that said material would have to be manually reproduced in order to be placed in a private email is indicative of a willful intent to bypass established rules governing classified items.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

<<< SHAKES HEAD >>>

Seems it simply IS some bad planning decisions on the part of Maricopa County election officials in their cost cutting measures. Apparently the officials decided the rise in early voting gave them an opportunity to cut corners and save money by reducing the number of polling places, and made it possible for county residents to vote in any polling place, not just their precincts. ‘No other county in Arizona reported the kinds of torturous lines that formed up at Maricopa County polling places.’

They simply did not expect such high voter turnout in Maricopa County.

But hey, I guess some would never let the chance slip by in order to scream the mantra of “voting suppression.” :rolleyes:






http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/2016/03/23/arizona-primary-our-view-we-outraged-long-lines/82152636/

The fact is they reduced the number of polling stations by about 70% from 2012 in a country with a very large minority population. That was the problem. That is voter suppression.

eire4

Suryavarman wrote: »

Any reasonable person can see that turnout being three times its usual level will result in it taking longer to vote. Saying it had nothing to do with it is absolutely ridiculous.

Any reasonable person can see when you reduce the number of polling stations by 70% there are going to be major problems.

Overheal

Seriously did they expect turnout for 2016 would be 70% lower than 2012, a re-election year?

Amazingfun

#CruzSexScandal is now trending on Twitter.

The National Enquirer has the scoop and apparently the same reporter who did the story on John Edwards mistress/love child way back when, a story that turned out to be true, has done an expose on Ted Cruz and five women he is alleged to have had affairs with.

The National Enquirer is indeed a tabloid – and as such there are various grains of salt that should be applied when reviewing anything they present.

However, that said, they have been unfortunately accurate for more than a few presidential hopefuls: Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards to name a few of the more infamous examples.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/24/the-national-enquirer-runs-story-of-multiple-ted-cruz-affairs/

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

The National Enquirer has the scoop and apparently the same reporter who did the story on John Edwards mistress/love child way back when, a story that turned out to be true, has done an expose on Ted Cruz and five women he is alleged to have had affairs with.

The National Enquirer is worse than some of the red tops at checkout in terms of reporting credibility. Some of their front page articles would make for poor fiction, so I would be very cautious about accepting anything they report, especially about any of the Republican or Democrat 2016 presidential candidates during this crazy election year.