2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Inquitus

eire4 wrote: »

Well tomorrow will be a big day for Sanders in that regard. If he can win Washington state which has a large delegate count at 101 as well as at least 1 of Alaska and Hawaii then he certainly will have gained some ground in the delegate count and will have gained some momentum given he won 3 of 4 contests earlier this week.

Yep but due to Hillary's big win in Arizona the delegate count was only very slightly in his favour across the 4 states, it didn't close the gap by a material amount.

Inquitus

How does US libel law work, if the Inquirer is making it up do they stand to be sued for a small fortune? or can you get away with this sort of slander in the US? Obv that's based on an assumption it's 100% false?

eire4

Inquitus wrote: »

Yep but due to Hillary's big win in Arizona the delegate count was only very slightly in his favour across the 4 states, it didn't close the gap by a material amount.

Yes it would have been great if he could have been closer in Arizona no doubt it. That would have helped with the delegate count. He clawed back 21 delegates over Monday and Tuesdays contests.

Thargor

Nobody believed the Inquirer when they had the scoop on Weiner and his d1ck pics, I know they're the definition of a rag but Id be surprised if they couldnt back this up, it would be a very big deal to fabricate something like this at this stage, I think Cruz is probably finished here.

Manach

From reading on US Privacy laws, my understanding is that US Libel is one of more liberal - key ruling was the Sullivan case in the 60s under the first amendment. But this protection only applies is that any articles be motivated by an honest journalist endevour and not say a deliberate attempt to smear someone.

eire4

Suryavarman wrote: »

If there was a lot of downtime at polling stations in 2012 then one could close a large number of polling stations without any issues assuming the turnout stayed the same.
QUOTE]



Do you have any information showing this "downtime in 2012" to be a fact?


Closing 70% of voting stations in a county with a heavy minority population shortly after the voting rights act was gutted looks very like Voter supression. That is a huge number to cut and we saw the impact it had loud and clear last Tuesday.

JPNelsforearm

The Donalds response to Lyin' Ted and the CubanMistressCrisis

Inquitus

Seems there could be some truth to this article, surely if that's the case then its the end of the road for Ted?

KingBrian2

The National Enquirer is a gutter tabloid publication. Nobody should take much of what it says seriously.

Inquitus

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The National Enquirer is a gutter tabloid publication. Nobody should take much of what it says seriously.

No doubt it's a gutter publication, but it has taken down a few potential presidential candidates in the past - Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards as examples, for these sort of indiscretions. Time will tell. It seems Rubio's campaign were touting this to the press a month or two ago, when he was still in the race, but noone wanted to take the risk to publish.

JPNelsforearm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The National Enquirer is a gutter tabloid publication. Nobody should take much of what it says seriously.

I hope its true, just for the pleasure of seeing Glenn Becks meltdown. Lyin' Ted, divinely anointed.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYb-S_KNelM

K-9

Inquitus wrote: »

No doubt it's a gutter publication, but it has taken down a few potential presidential candidates in the past - Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards as examples, for these sort of indiscretions. Time will tell. It seems Rubio's campaign were touting this to the press a month or two ago, when he was still in the race, but noone wanted to take the risk to publish.

Hart was gone anyway really, the Enquirer was the cherry on top.

K-9

If Trump's aide is denying it and another woman well, looks like it's a pile of crap.

Thargor

they got the same fake tatoos on the same day back in 2014 and showed them off:

LuckyLloyd

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The Donalds response to Lyin' Ted and the CubanMistressCrisis

This is an extraordinary statement. Forces it into the mainstream media as a thing. He is exceptional at media management.

Amazingfun

Suryavarman wrote: »

#CruzSexScandal is trending at number three on my Twitter at the moment.

Yeah, it was put back up later. Very strange carry on, not sure if it was because of the pressure or if they just had a genuine glitch at one stage.
It was definitely gone for a period of time though.

Twitter has been caught doing this kind of thing before

embraer170

Amanda Carpenter on Fox News in 2008 expressing approval for the Enquirer investigation into John Edwards:
https://youtu.be/JSgkY89p8_E

Karma

Akrasia

Suryavarman wrote: »

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.

Actually, Hillary won 60% of the votes that were early ballots, ie, people voted weeks ago before Sanders had much of chance to spread his campaign message. On the actual election day, sanders won 52% of the ballots cast in Arizona

That is also true of Illinois, Sanders won on the night, but lost the early ballots.

This is why suppressing the voter turnout benefits Hillary, and she knows this.

K-9

So the states fall nicely for Bernie this time? Should win these 3 with Wisconsin and Wyoming to come. Should give him momentum and increased press coverage for NY and the NE states to come. It's a tall ask, needs to sweep the states he wins and come close in any Hillary wins.

Inquitus

Politicalbetting.com is a great website for combining betting odds and the newscycle. This piece is a good one on the Enquirer story and the impact on the odds of the 3 remaining candidates, well worth a read.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/03/26/after-the-latest-blow-up-david-herdson-says-now-is-the-time-to-back-401-kasich/

And an amusing bit of art for your Sunday lunchtime

SNIP[/IMG]

Inquitus

Seems my artwork got moderated out, apologies for evidentally breaching a guideline there.

Suryavarman

Akrasia wrote: »

Actually, Hillary won 60% of the votes that were early ballots, ie, people voted weeks ago before Sanders had much of chance to spread his campaign message. On the actual election day, sanders won 52% of the ballots cast in Arizona

That is also true of Illinois, Sanders won on the night, but lost the early ballots.

This is why suppressing the voter turnout benefits Hillary, and she knows this.

Overall Clinton still won by a wide margin. She's still going to win the nomination by a wide margin. If these issues didn't occur on election day then Sanders might have ended up with 1 or 2 extra delegates considering voting on the day was a "virtual tie".

timmyntc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is an extraordinary statement. Forces it into the mainstream media as a thing. He is exceptional at media management.

If Cruz had just kept quiet on the whole issue and hadn't given it any recognition this may have been swept under the carpet and ignored. But his response, and his blaming of Trump will swiftly come back to bite him in the ass.

Whether the story is true or not, the mere mention of it in the media will hurt Cruz' reputation as a Hardcore Christian familyman, which is the basis of his campaign at this stage.

K-9

In fairness did Cruz do much? Trump calmly and rationally as per usual replied to an ad that Cruz says had nothing to do with him mentioning Cruz's wife and away we go.

Ever since Gary Hart the press will just pester you and read stuff into non replies, never mind direct comments!

As Johnson was supposed to have said:
Aide- "You can't call him a pig f*cker"
JBJ- "Yeah, but I'd like to see him deny it"

Nobody knows if that was true but it's a political axiom that goes back further than Johnson.

timmyntc

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness did Cruz do much? Trump calmly and rationally as per usual replied to an ad that Cruz says had nothing to do with him mentioning Cruz's wife and away we go.

Ever since Gary Hart the press will just pester you and read stuff into non replies, never mind direct comments!

As Johnson was supposed to have said:
Aide- "You can't call him a pig f*cker"
JBJ- "Yeah, but I'd like to see him deny it"

Nobody knows if that was true but it's a political axiom that goes back further than Johnson.

Cruz came out aabout the Enquirer article and started categorically denying it and accusing Trump of having some of his buddies at the Enquirer making up stories about Cruz. It was a bad move as it ensured Trump (the most popular man in media atm) would give a response re: the article and Cruz' allegations, which gains the article in question even more publicity. A classic example of the Streisand effect.

Remember David Cameron, the pig f*cker? It was all the rage for about a week, if even, but Cameron never acknowledged the claims and they did go away. Most people don't remember the story unless reminded, it just doesn't stick. Cruz however, by making a big deal and denying these stories, has ensured they would stick.

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The Donalds response to Lyin' Ted and the CubanMistressCrisis

You have to admire his media management.
This post is pure gamesmanship by Trump. "I have no idea if this story about my rival is true but here is a list of stuff the paper was right about for no reason whatsoever".
I have no idea if he started it but he has no issues putting fuel on the fire.

Granted at this point the republican nomination is lost to anyone mildly sensible. Neither is a good option in any way shape or form.

MadYaker

Cruz is an idiot, why would he engage with this? It's playing straight into Trumps hands. He should have just pretended that the story never happened.

K-9

timmyntc wrote: »

Cruz came out aabout the Enquirer article and started categorically denying it and accusing Trump of having some of his buddies at the Enquirer making up stories about Cruz. It was a bad move as it ensured Trump (the most popular man in media atm) would give a response re: the article and Cruz' allegations, which gains the article in question even more publicity. A classic example of the Streisand effect.

Remember David Cameron, the pig f*cker? It was all the rage for about a week, if even, but Cameron never acknowledged the claims and they did go away. Most people don't remember the story unless reminded, it just doesn't stick. Cruz however, by making a big deal and denying these stories, has ensured they would stick.

Could be wrong, but didn't Trump tweet before the Enquirer article came out?

timmyntc

K-9 wrote: »

Could be wrong, but didn't Trump tweet before the Enquirer article came out?

He tweeted something about Cruz should be careful with those campaign ads ft. his wife, or else Trump would come out with the truth about Cruz' wife. Although I think that is in reference to her shady past in Goldman Sachs and other financial positions in which she's alleged to have had some part in many shady business deals.

Hard to see how Trump could have been referring to a Cruz sex scandal, seeing as that is more of an attack on Cruz than his wife?

MadYaker

I thought spouses/children were considered a no go area in campaigns?