2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

eire4

Big night certainly last night for Sanders. He was expected to do well in this run of western states but 6 of 7 and winning with such large margins has allowed him to make some ground up delegate wise and firmly re-establish himself in the Democratic race. Not including the super delegates the delegate count is 1,243 Clinton 975 Sanders with Wisconsin April 5 and Wyoming April 9 next up. Clinton still very much the favourite but Sanders still very much in contention as momentum on the Democratic side seems to swing back and forth.

briany

eire4 wrote: »

Big night certainly last night for Sanders. He was expected to do well in this run of western states but 6 of 7 and winning with such large margins has allowed him to make some ground up delegate wise and firmly re-establish himself in the Democratic race. Not including the super delegates the delegate count is 1,243 Clinton 975 Sanders with Wisconsin April 5 and Wyoming April 9 next up. Clinton still very much the favourite but Sanders still very much in contention as momentum on the Democratic side seems to swing back and forth.

The Democratic side of things will be interesting even in the very likely event that Sanders does not win because Sanders has people voting for him who wouldn't go for Hillary or Trump. They'd be left-wing independents and that sort of thing, so it'd be interesting to see what concessions Hillary would try to make in order to get Sanders' support and this voting bloc.

spiralism

briany wrote: »

The Democratic side of things will be interesting even in the very likely event that Sanders does not win because Sanders has people voting for him who wouldn't go for Hillary or Trump. They'd be left-wing independents and that sort of thing, so it'd be interesting to see what concessions Hillary would try to make in order to get Sanders' support and this voting bloc.

Spot on the ticket? They do need to keep the Bernie support on side if they hope to beat Trump in the election

briany

spiralism wrote: »

Spot on the ticket? They do need to keep the Bernie support on side if they hope to beat Trump in the election

Hard to see this happening. On his Young Turks interview, Sanders was asked if he'd give Hillary a position in his administration and he said no and did not sugarcoat it. This says to me that he considers himself and Hillary too ideologically different to work together in an administration, whoever wins. Hillary wants his voters but she probably wouldn't want him giving her a load of left-wing nagging throughout her presidency. I'd say she'd much prefer to make a bunch of promises in a meeting which she would then wriggle out of post-inauguration.

Akrasia

Suryavarman wrote: »

Sanders has to win 67% of the remaining 2,049 delegates to win the nomination. 247 of those delegates are up for grabs in New York which is Hillary's homestate and where she is far ahead in the polls. Neighbouring states Connecticut and New Jersey have 55 and 126 delegates respectively. Although I haven't seen polls for those states it's not unreasonable to think that Clinton should win there. The next state to vote, Wisconsin, has 86 delegates up for grabs and a poll I've seen has Clinton in the lead. She also has massive leads in Maryland and Pennsylvania which have 95 and 189 delegates up for grabs. Then there's California with 475 delegates where a recent poll once again shows Clinton with a lead.

Let's be generous and assume Sanders can get half of those delegates. That would leave Hillary needing 84 of the remaining 876 delegates whereas Sanders would need 793. Even if we assume he could somehow manage to win all the super delegates pledged to Hillary he would still need 324 delegates.

He isn't going to get half the delegates in the states mentioned and he most definitely isn't going to get all the superdelegates pledged to Clinton. To any objective observer this race is over and has been for sometime. Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee and probably the next president. If pigs begin to fly and Sanders makes it to the White House then it doesn't really matter. Because very little of his dreadful policy platform will be passed.

The race is over. Sorry to have to break it you.

All of your figures are meaningless when you realise that super delegates are extremely unlikely subvert the will of the voters. It is propaganda to include super delegates before the end of the campaign

Suryavarman

Akrasia wrote: »

All of your figures are meaningless when you realise that super delegates are extremely unlikely subvert the will of the voters. It is propaganda to include super delegates before the end of the campaign

They're also extremely unlikely to vote for a man that many of them do not like. Believe it or not his "every one is corrupt ideologically bankrupt apart from me" act doesn't appeal to a whole lot of liberals and progressives that have done a whole lot more for their respective movements than Sanders ever has.

As I said in my original post, even if all the superdelegates vote for Sanders he's still unlikely to win the nomination. It isn't propaganda to include their pledges in the count, it's just reality. Just because reality doesn't conform to your world view doesn't mean it should be discounted.

Inquitus

Akrasia wrote: »

All of your figures are meaningless when you realise that super delegates are extremely unlikely subvert the will of the voters. It is propaganda to include super delegates before the end of the campaign

Even ignoring the Super delegates, the democratic race is over unless Hillary gets indicted for the mail server issues. He's losing in the polls in all the places he needs to win big in to make up the difference, and he has done best in caucus states, most of the remaining states are straight our primaries.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-delegates-221270

I'd love to see Bernie win, but sad to say its not looking very likely unless something comes out of the blue.

InTheTrees

Akrasia wrote: »

All of your figures are meaningless when you realise that super delegates are extremely unlikely subvert the will of the voters. It is propaganda to include super delegates before the end of the campaign

Super delegates are "voters" too, they're members of the Democratic Party hierarchy.

I think most political parties pick their leaders from a vote among their members so the US primary/caucus system can be a lot more inclusive of the public but it doesnt mean the party itself cant have a block of votes reserved for their members.

Inquitus

InTheTrees wrote: »

Super delegates are "voters" too, they're members of the Democratic Party hierarchy.

I think most political parties pick their leaders from a vote among their members so the US primary/caucus system can be a lot more inclusive of the public but it doesnt mean the party itself cant have a block of votes reserved for their members.

Super delegates won't go against the popular vote though, at least Democrat wise, no Idea WTF is going to happen at the Republican Convention that could be epic!

vetinari

InTheTrees wrote: »

Super delegates are "voters" too, they're members of the Democratic Party hierarchy.

I think most political parties pick their leaders from a vote among their members so the US primary/caucus system can be a lot more inclusive of the public but it doesn't mean the party itself cant have a block of votes reserved for their members.

The superdelegates won't decide the race, that would be an absolute disaster for the Democrats.
Whoever wins the pledged delegate count will win the nomination.
To say otherwise is really just propaganda for Hillary.
She's still the prohibitive favorite but Sanders still has a chance.

It's 1243 vs 975 in pledged delegates and you need to get to about 1840 pledged delegates.

It's quite frustrating that the democrats have the whole super delegates concept.
It's primary purpose seems to be to show establishment candidates having bigger leads than they actually have.
Pure propaganda. If all the super delegates were supporting Bernie, he would be ahead in the race!
And again that would be a false reflection of the race.

eire4

InTheTrees wrote: »

Super delegates are "voters" too, they're members of the Democratic Party hierarchy.

I think most political parties pick their leaders from a vote among their members so the US primary/caucus system can be a lot more inclusive of the public but it doesnt mean the party itself cant have a block of votes reserved for their members.

Your absolutely correct. However if the race remains close and Clinton needs the almost total ownership so to speak of the super delegates which she currently does have then that will alienate a large chunk of the Sanders support who either will not vote at all or will instead vote for someone like Jill Stein of the Green Party. It is just that king of "fixed" vote which is one of the core's of what the Sanders campaaign is railing against ie that the politcial system is fixed against the vast majority of Americans.


What makes it even worse is states like for example Washington where Sanders won by a massive margin yet every super delegate is voting against Sanders currently. That is the system as it stands and they are entitled to do that. But if they think they can behave in that manner and keep all the Sanders voters onside then I think they are either extremely arrogant or making a very big mistake.

BoJack Horseman

What takes a super delegate to switch sides?

Being party apparatchiks are they just siding with someone to sew them up for a job in the next administration.

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What takes a super delegate to switch sides?

Being party apparatchiks are they just siding with someone to sew them up for a job in the next administration.

More or less (see Chris Christie for example), even though that is apparently illegal and something people have served time for.

BlibBlab

I've seen it said that Hillary Clinton may be indicted over the email thing. Can someone explain what she did, what she would be charged with and how likely it is to happen?

InTheTrees

eire4 wrote: »

That is the system as it stands and they are entitled to do that. But if they think they can behave in that manner and keep all the Sanders voters onside then I think they are either extremely arrogant or making a very big mistake.

Well how do Fine Gael elect a new leader? How do Fianna fail?

I dont think its unreasonable that party leadership get a guaranteed vote. Super delegates can vote for bernie if they want. Maybe they will.

"Behave in that manner"? It seems pretty fair.

Manach

On Clinton's emails, it seems to revolve around if she should have forwarded her emails relating to her tenure in State to an outside (ie private) server. This would have broken the rather draconian security laws depending on a variety of factors.

Her aides claim that none of the emails were marked at the time as classified and hence this is a non-issue. On the other hand an investigitation has been started (FBI) to determine if the evidence is enough to move to an inditement (AFAIR from a US law book, this is equivalent to a pre-trial phase).

From reading various sites, this looks to be a process that will continue for another few months.

InTheTrees

BlibBlab wrote: »

I've seen it said that Hillary Clinton may be indicted over the email thing. Can someone explain what she did, what she would be charged with and how likely it is to happen?

Republicans have been enraged by Hillary since the mid 1990's when Bill Clinton put her (unelected wife of the president, shock!) in charge of Health care reform. Twenty years of faux outrages resulting in zero charges against her.

oscarBravo

InTheTrees wrote: »

Republicans have been enraged by Hillary since the mid 1990's when Bill Clinton put her (unelected wife of the president, shock!) in charge of Health care reform. Twenty years of faux outrages resulting in zero charges against her.

Don't forget millions of dollars spent on trying to pin something - anything! - on her over Benghazi.

vetinari

InTheTrees you're not exactly comparing apples to apples there.

If Fine Gael or Fianna Fail decided to host a national primary to elect a leader, people would be rightly pissed off if they then decided to pick someone other than the person who won the primary.

If the Democrats don't want to pick the person who wins a majority of the pledged delegates, why even have primaries?
Mixing approaches doesn't work. I really hope they scrap the super delegates after this election. They're pointless in the current process.

InTheTrees

vetinari wrote: »

If the Democrats don't want to pick the person who wins a majority of the pledged delegates, why even have primaries?

Well youre moving the goal posts are you?

Super delegates are voters too.

For you the nominee has to win all the pledged delegates? And what happens to the party member's votes? Why would party members votes be worth less than members of the public?

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well how do Fine Gael elect a new leader? How do Fianna fail?

I dont think its unreasonable that party leadership get a guaranteed vote. Super delegates can vote for bernie if they want. Maybe they will.

"Behave in that manner"? It seems pretty fair.

Interesting note on the whole potential Democratic Superdelegates / Trump Brokered Convention situations:

The United States Constitution wrote:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

Basically, this has all been there from the beginning - in 1792, only 5 of the 14 states even used any form of popular vote, the majority just had their representatives do it, as the US is more a republic than democracy. Now obviously this has not been the case for a good long while in terms of practice, but that's how it was laid out in the beginning and the rules remain.

InTheTrees

vetinari wrote: »

If Fine Gael or Fianna Fail decided to host a national primary to elect a leader, people would be rightly pissed off if they then decided to pick someone other than the person who won the primary.

If Fine Gael or Fianna Fail decided to host a national primary and also guarantee votes for party members then what would be wrong with that?

Can fine gael members vote for the leader of the Fianna fail? I very much doubt it.

Democratic Party members votes are worth the same as anyone elses, I dont see why you'd want to deny them.

Billy86

oscarBravo wrote: »

Don't forget millions of dollars spent on trying to pin something - anything! - on her over Benghazi.

It's not surprising given that this is the same party that did everything it could to stop it's own health care policy being passed for several years because the guy (re)introducing it had a (D) beside his name. Whether or not his skin colour played a role in him being targeted over and over and over again on issues that didn't even exist, including religion and nationality, remains 'inconclusive'.

blackcard

Manach wrote: »

On Clinton's emails, it seems to revolve around if she should have forwarded her emails relating to her tenure in State to an outside (ie private) server. This would have broken the rather draconian security laws depending on a variety of factors.

Her aides claim that none of the emails were marked at the time as classified and hence this is a non-issue. On the other hand an investigitation has been started (FBI) to determine if the evidence is enough to move to an inditement (AFAIR from a US law book, this is equivalent to a pre-trial phase).

From reading various sites, this looks to be a process that will continue for another few months.

What is the issue with forwarding emails to a private server? What did she have to gain by doing this?

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

Interesting note on the whole potential Democratic Superdelegates / Trump Brokered Convention situations:

Basically, this has all been there from the beginning - in 1792, only 5 of the 14 states even used any form of popular vote, the majority just had their representatives do it, as the US is more a republic than democracy. Now obviously this has not been the case for a good long while in terms of practice, but that's how it was laid out in the beginning and the rules remain.

Those are the rules for the presidential Electoral College.

Thats quite different from the party primaries.

I dont think people realise how undemocratic the presidential election process really is. Citizens dont actually vote for the president at all, they just vote for electors who they hope will vote the way they are prompted to by the results of the vote. But they dont have to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

Those are the rules for the presidential Electoral College.

Thats quite different from the party primaries.

I dont think people realise how undemocratic the presidential election process really is. Citizens dont actually vote for the president at all, they just vote for electors who they hope will vote the way they are prompted to by the results of the vote. But they dont have to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29

Good spot, I overlooked that. Any idea when primaries really developed and under what guidelines? It's an interesting thing to come about this cycle that I don't recall hearing of before in my lifetime as even a remote possibility, but the talk is similar - that the legislature has about always said as much.

vetinari

InTheTrees wrote: »

Democratic Party members votes are worth the same as anyone elses, I dont see why you'd want to deny them.

Who's denying them a vote? They can vote in their respective primaries / caucuses. It would to repeat be an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats if the superdelegates end up deciding the nominee. They know this so that's why it won't happen. They would lose the general election and maybe cause a party split.

The equivalent in Irish politics with be the Fine Gael cabinet ministers being able to overturn a party vote for a new leader.

InTheTrees

vetinari wrote: »

Who's denying them a vote? They can vote in their respective primaries / caucuses.

Republicans can vote in Deomcratic primaries in many states, they're open to everyone, even held on separate dates.

So you're saying the Democratic party leadership would have the same vote for their party's nominee as a republican?? Thats the problem.

Can Fine Gael vote for a Fianna Fail leader?

I'm no fan of the system. I think it should be down to a vote by registered members of each party.

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

Any idea when primaries really developed and under what guidelines? It's an interesting thing to come about this cycle that I don't recall hearing of before in my lifetime as even a remote possibility, but the talk is similar - that the legislature has about always said as much.

Its a bit of a messy system isnt it? There's some charm to the caucus' (my gf is a delegate here in Seattle) but its also a good example of why a secret vote is far more fair.

Overheal

A Trump PAC manager stepped down from her position following the #CubanMistressCrisis and is now saying what we suspected all along...that he doesn't want the presidency, he wants the book deals and the acumen.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-campaign-defector-takes-full-responsibility-for-helping-create-this-monster/