2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

LuckyLloyd

Christy42 wrote: »

You mean the evening that saw him admit he has no hope at this point? I mean I know he was in this for more than the nomination but I still hardly feel he will look back on today as a good day.

Button is laughing at the odd phenomenon of Sanders fans managing to see a path consistently after their candidate had no realistic chance of the nomination.

TheDoctor

Fairly comprehensive on both sides. Onto Indiana.

Early polls have Trump by around 5 points and Clinton by 4.

Christy42

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Button is laughing at the odd phenomenon of Sanders fans managing to see a path consistently after their candidate had no realistic chance of the nomination.

Woops. Missed the meaning in the post.

Noticed the fivethirtyeight reporting a host of Latino voter registrations in California who are likely to not vote for Trump in November. As they say Trump hasn't a hope in California anyway but if it occurs elsewhere.

One can only hope since he is yabbering on about this wall of his.

oscarBravo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Button is laughing at the odd phenomenon of Sanders fans managing to see a path consistently after their candidate had no realistic chance of the nomination.

Yes, we know. Strangely enough, not everyone buys into the philosophy that when your team looks unlikely to win, you should stop cheering and leave the stadium.

LuckyLloyd

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, we know. Strangely enough, not everyone buys into the philosophy that when your team looks unlikely to win, you should stop cheering and leave the stadium.

No - one is suggesting 'leave the stadium'. But I fail to see the point in arguing blindly against the math and continuing to push what you want to happen as 'analysis'. The really fascinating aspect of Sanders campaign is his effect on Clinton's campaign platform and it now becomes very interesting to see how much of his support base he can bring across with him to support Hillary.

I'd be super interested in discussing such topics. Hopecasting posts about how Sanders still has a path are far less interesting.

It's all subjective though I guess.

PopePalpatine

I'm a Sanders supporter, but I'll admit that he's probably got a <10% chance of becoming the Dems' nominee, I'm just hoping that his supporters bring Hillary a bit more to the left and a lot further away from Big Business's interests.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Bernie bots on that Karl Rove time, its over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj5wZy3crko

Cut out the bot comments please. You're welcome to post videos but please comment on their content without using derogatory terminology. This goes regardless of who the candidate is.

ancapailldorcha

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm a Sanders supporter, but I'll admit that he's probably got a <10% chance of becoming the Dems' nominee, I'm just hoping that his supporters bring Hillary a bit more to the left and a lot further away from Big Business's interests.

I wouldn't have much hope there. Hillary is now the default choice for Democrats and moderate Republicans. Sanders supporters aren't going to flock to someone like Trump or Cruz. Kasich perhaps but his chances depend on Trump failing to hit the 1,237 delegate mark, an event which is looking increasingly unlikely.

Christy42

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No - one is suggesting 'leave the stadium'. But I fail to see the point in arguing blindly against the math and continuing to push what you want to happen as 'analysis'. The really fascinating aspect of Sanders campaign is his effect on Clinton's campaign platform and it now becomes very interesting to see how much of his support base he can bring across with him to support Hillary.

I'd be super interested in discussing such topics. Hopecasting posts about how Sanders still has a path are far less interesting.

It's all subjective though I guess.

I imagine Bernie will start to lay off Clinton and start to prepare to shift his followers over.

He is at best 5% chance of winning and that would be generous. He isn't stupid and he isn't that far off Clinton idealogically so he has no reason to seriously fight her. He will keep the campaign up but that is probably a good thing for the Democrats to give them an excuse to campaign for a few months and not have Hillary fall off the grid.

JPNelsforearm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Cut out the bot comments please. You're welcome to post videos but please comment on their content without using derogatory terminology. This goes regardless of who the candidate is.

Is Bernie bot a derogatory term? Its fairly well established in the media at this point, as for the vids.

"Anything can happen"

"Bernie Sanders is still competitive"

"This is not a wake, THIS IS AN AWAKENING"

"He's fighting for the AIR WE BREATHE, the WATER WE DRINK!!"

"Twelve primaries to GO!"

"Feel the BERN"


This coming from ostensibly rational political pundits, its Rove-esque.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Is Bernie bot a derogatory term? Its fairly well established in the media at this point, as for the vids.

"Anything can happen"

"Bernie Sanders is still competitive"

"This is not a wake, THIS IS AN AWAKENING"

"He's fighting for the AIR WE BREATHE, the WATER WE DRINK!!"

"Twelve primaries to GO!"

"Feel the BERN"


This coming from ostensibly rational political pundits.

I'm not a moderator of Youtube or US news networks though. If you have more questions, take it to PM please.

LuckyLloyd

Christy42 wrote: »

I imagine Bernie will start to lay off Clinton and start to prepare to shift his followers over.

He is at best 5% chance of winning and that would be generous. He isn't stupid and he isn't that far off Clinton idealogically so he has no reason to seriously fight her. He will keep the campaign up but that is probably a good thing for the Democrats to give them an excuse to campaign for a few months and not have Hillary fall off the grid.

Honestly think a continued campaign only hurts Clinton at this point. If he endorsed her now it would allow the general election campaign to begin in earnest from her side, and shift the focus on Trump and Cruz.

Christy42

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Honestly think a continued campaign only hurts Clinton at this point. If he endorsed her now it would allow the general election campaign to begin in earnest from her side, and shift the focus on Trump and Cruz.

Why not just start it now. Her winning the nomination is a technicality at this stage. Just campaign for the general election in the states that have primaries/caucuses left.

Sanders can then join the attack on the Republicans and focus on getting as many voters registered and eager to vote as he can.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wouldn't have much hope there. Hillary is now the default choice for Democrats and moderate Republicans. Sanders supporters aren't going to flock to someone like Trump or Cruz. Kasich perhaps but his chances depend on Trump failing to hit the 1,237 delegate mark, an event which is looking increasingly unlikely.

Yesterday's results were excellent for Trump but right in line with what was expected. His path to 1237 is all about how many delegates he can pick up in the States coming up that he's going to lose. If Cruz and Kasich both stay under 50% so no-one takes all then a couple of dozen extra delegates for Trump is crucial. He's probably around twice as likely as not to hit the target but it'll be tight. Morbid curiosity about the bloodbath at the convention if fails to hit it kinda makes me hope he doesn't.
Then again, the GOP seems to running out of options so there's still the decision for them to make about how they can allow Trump run but somehow insulate the candidates down the ticket.

InTheTrees

I think this primary season has been a pretty resounding lesson on how undemocratic the process really is.

A good precursor to the farce of the "Electoral College".

oscarBravo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No - one is suggesting 'leave the stadium'.

They're suggesting instead that the team should leave the field and hand over the victory. Worse yet, they're sneering at the team's supporters for continuing to support them until the game is over.

I don't think anyone here thinks it likely that Bernie will win the nomination. If someone wants to make themselves look clever by jeering at people who aren't backing the clear favourite, fine: whatever floats their boat. Predicting a likely outcome is such a sign of immense cleverness, after all.

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

Yesterday's results were excellent for Trump but right in line with what was expected. His path to 1237 is all about how many delegates he can pick up in the States coming up that he's going to lose. If Cruz and Kasich both stay under 50% so no-one takes all then a couple of dozen extra delegates for Trump is crucial. He's probably around twice as likely as not to hit the target but it'll be tight. Morbid curiosity about the bloodbath at the convention if fails to hit it kinda makes me hope he doesn't.
Then again, the GOP seems to running out of options so there's still the decision for them to make about how they can allow Trump run but somehow insulate the candidates down the ticket.

The best bit is, no matter what it's a win win as far as entertainment is concerned. The contested convention would be great, so would a Trump v Hillary debate.
One thing's for sure, the best is most certainly yet to come.

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If you go into the links you will see they are funded by George Soros. That was why I linked them, the three biggest open borders/refugee groups in Ireland are funded by Open societies.

I already pointed that out, thanks. These are links to NASC who help with human rights and integration, an article speaking out against Islamophobia, and a report against racism. They are not paying protesters to do anything.

Im not a fan of rights being eroded in the name of multiculturalism and the implementation of a victim hierarchy and two tier justice system.

What rights are being eroded in those three links you gave?

Not to mention all these groups are actively engaged in lobbying for open borders,

I searched for 'open borders' on the NASC and ENAR websites and came up blank. The Immigration Council of Ireland don't have such a function on their website, but a brief look around gave me nothing (probably as their website is a bit sparse - their 'key issues' page is empty for example).

Can you show me where all three are 'actively engaged in lobbying for open borders'?

in essence they are a fifth column within society, but yeah, what I really want is to go around being racist for no reason and shouting racist insults, just because...:rolleyes:

They are a fifth column if you view foreigners or people of different beliefs or people of different skin colour as default enemies. There are words to describe people with those views.

I didnt say in Ireland, I said George Soros open society organisation move-on.org has paid and organised protests against Trump. I posted why a few pages back. That you dont think an email from said organisation admitting to making payments in good enough, fine.

I never said you were talking about Ireland, I was directly quoting a post of yours where you said "Sanders backers(eg Soros funded "Move-On") have been paying for protesters and leftist rent a mobs to appear in person at various protests" and later referred to them as "professional protesters".

Your evidence that of these "professional protesters" is that they pay their organisers (as does just about any company), and pay for signs and advertising, and that Soros openly and without any attempts to hide it, funded a report against Islamophobia, a report against racism, and funds a group that advocate the likes of immigrants rights and promote integration. So if someone showed you a picture of one of the kids killed in Sandy Hook being used at a memorial for children killed in the middle east, would you take that as proof that Sandy Hook was a hoax and that none of those children ever even existed?

FatherTed

Rjd2 wrote: »

I can see your point, but the likes of Durham, Goldberg and other celebs have slaughtered Trump in interviews, can you say anything more insulting to someone running for president that you'd emigrate if they win?

Its a childish response from Trump I suppose, but I don't really blame him for it tbh.

I am biased though, Durham is someone I don't like though:pac:

Not any different to all the people who said they'd leave for Canada/wherever if Obama got elected.
Truth is these are pointless, empty threats that are never carried out in reality.

hatrickpatrick

Unfortunately it looks like Sanders' campaign is dead in the water, barring a Clinton indictment (fingers still crossed, but given that the DOJ is the one who decides whether to prosecute - serious,y what the f*ck is up with that - it's not looking good) so the question now is, will Sanders supporters support Clinton in the general.

One thought I had was that they could tacitly agree to it, on condition that a genuine progressive would vow to mount a primary challenge in 2020. Meanwhile, they could work to flood Congress with progressive Dems so that Clinton's attempts to pursue neo con policies would be severely limited.

Just a few thoughts that have been thrown around the Sanders Reddit page. Anyone know when the last time an incumbent president was hit with a primary challenge in their own party?

Rjd2

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-using-bernie-sanders-material-222520

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/724993336000532480


Like or him or not but that is very canny from Trump. For those who don't want to click its Trump saying Sanders has been treated terribly.

Trump like everyone knows quite a few Bernie fans would rather be dead than vote for him, but their is also plenty who have spent months loathing the establishment Clinton so no matter how hard Bernie endorses her and he will, they still will be incredibly reluctant to vote for her.

It might seem absurd, but their is some similarities in both fanbases, people fed up with the establishment,mainly white who are looking for someone to bring genuine change and change things up drastically.

hatrickpatrick

I saw Trump's speech last night and he was really appealing to Sanders supporters (in fact he's been subtly doing this for several weeks, but openly declared it last night) talking about how the DNC's behaviour and the superdelegate situation has essentially mirrored his own treatment by the Republican leadership, and how himself and Sanders have one major thing in common which is that they're both popular candidates who have faced deliberate and undemocratic attempts to kill their campaigns prematurely.

I'm not sure if he's trying to win Sanders supporters over to his side, or if he's hoping Sanders will run as independent in order to fragment the Democratic vote. I do know a lot of Sanders supporters who are considering a vote for him if Clinton is the nominee, with reasons ranging from teaching the DNC a lesson in not suppressing a candidate in future, to hoping that his first term is so disastrous that they can have a progressive victory in 2020, with a proper Democratic candidate.

Interesting times ahead for the general if it ends up as Trump v Clinton, that's for sure. Although personally if the #BernItDown movement succeeds, I'd have serious doubts about whether the DNC will actually learn any lessons from it. I actually think that Tim Canova is now a crucial candidate for the progressive base - for anyone who's unaware, he's mounting a Primary challenge to incumbent DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is widely (and in my view, rightly) regarded as a totally biased Clinton hack who has done everything in her power to undermine Sanders, in violation of the DNC's impartiality rules.

ancapailldorcha

Seems to me that Trump is merely trying to split the Democrat vote as opposed to being genuinely concerned about the concerns of young white left-wingers.

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I saw Trump's speech last night and he was really appealing to Sanders supporters (in fact he's been subtly doing this for several weeks, but openly declared it last night) talking about how the DNC's behaviour and the superdelegate situation has essentially mirrored his own treatment by the Republican leadership, and how himself and Sanders have one major thing in common which is that they're both popular candidates who have faced deliberate and undemocratic attempts to kill their campaigns prematurely.

I'm not sure if he's trying to win Sanders supporters over to his side, or if he's hoping Sanders will run as independent in order to fragment the Democratic vote. I do know a lot of Sanders supporters who are considering a vote for him if Clinton is the nominee, with reasons ranging from teaching the DNC a lesson in not suppressing a candidate in future, to hoping that his first term is so disastrous that they can have a progressive victory in 2020, with a proper Democratic candidate.

Interesting times ahead for the general if it ends up as Trump v Clinton, that's for sure. Although personally if the #BernItDown movement succeeds, I'd have serious doubts about whether the DNC will actually learn any lessons from it. I actually think that Tim Canova is now a crucial candidate for the progressive base - for anyone who's unaware, he's mounting a Primary challenge to incumbent DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is widely (and in my view, rightly) regarded as a totally biased Clinton hack who has done everything in her power to undermine Sanders, in violation of the DNC's impartiality rules.

I agree with you about who and what Wasserman-Schultz is. I would go a step further though and say she is very much the embodiment of the corrupt corporate Democrats who run that party basically. Her payday lender money and subsequent support of a bill to favour them being an example. There are a lot of people who are fed up of being told to vote for the lesser of 2 evils and will not vote for Clinton. You will see some voting Sanders as a write in candidate and you will see some voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. No doubt a lot will vote for Clinton but she has a heck of a road to go to win over a lot of those who right now are saying that will not vote for Clinton.
Probably the smartest move she could make would be to offer the VP slot to Sanders but that is about as likely as Sanders winning the Democratic nomination at this point is.

Hande hoche!

Seems like it's rumoured that Cruz is going to announce Fiorina as the VP pick.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cruz-idUSKCN0XO26H

ebbsy

Cruz can pick whoever he likes I don't think myself it is going to make much difference after last night. It would be crazy to put him forward as the candidate as well, I think Clinton would eat him for breakfast.

Most of the contested convention talk is coming from the Trump camp but I think the other candidates are too weak for there to be anything to worry about.

It will be interesting to see exactly how popular Clinton is nationally. She certainly has got a major leg up so far.

Black Swan

It's going to be a terribly close race between Clinton and Trump 8 November 2016 for president.

When Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, methinks that she will pick a male VP running mate. She will not pick another female. Probably pick a male Democratic governor or US senator from a state where she anticipates a close race with Trump, hoping to carry it with its governor or senator.

An alternative would be for her to convince Bernie Sanders to be her VP running mate. Methinks this would be a brilliant move that would unite both sides of her party, as well as draw-in a great number of Independent Sanders supporters. The Democrats currently have more registered voters than Republicans, and such a move might get them to the polls, rather than have Sanders supporters stay at home.

But it's doubtful that Hillary would consider such a radical move, a move that I believe would crush Trump 8 November 2016. True Sanders supporters would never vote for rich-since-birth billionaire Trump, one of the tiny number of billionaire elitists that Sanders is against philosophically and politically. Anecdotally, Clinton and Sanders were very polite to each other after Clinton won most of the states Tuesday, but naaaaaaa, a Clinton-Sanders ticket is a fantasy that will not happen. Clinton is not that smart. Or is she?

Christy42

Black Swan wrote: »

It's going to be a terribly close race between Clinton and Trump 8 November 2016 for president.

When Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, methinks that she will pick a male VP running mate. She will not pick another female. Probably pick a male Democratic governor or US senator from a state where she anticipates a close race with Trump, hoping to carry it with its governor or senator.

An alternative would be for her to convince Bernie Sanders to be her VP running mate. Methinks this would be a brilliant move that would unite both sides of her party, as well as draw-in a great number of Independent Sanders supporters. The Democrats currently have more registered voters than Republicans, and such a move might get them to the polls, rather than have Sanders supporters stay at home.

But it's doubtful that Hillary would consider such a radical move, a move that I believe would crush Trump 8 November 2016. True Sanders supporters would never vote for rich-since-birth billionaire Trump, one of the tiny number of billionaire elitists that Sanders is against philosophically and politically. Anecdotally, Clinton and Sanders were very polite to each other after Clinton won most of the states Tuesday, but naaaaaaa, a Clinton-Sanders ticket is a fantasy that will not happen. Clinton is not that smart. Or is she?

I don't know if two white old people on a ballot is the best idea for the Democratic audience. Still a younger member of the party that was supportive of Sanders might be ideal. Not sure who though. Bonus points if they are a minority.

I can't see Trump winning. Where does he win that Romney didn't win 4 years ago? He is great at getting his voters to the polls in big numbers but how many uneducated white males (shown as his main demographic time after time) can there be?

Black Swan

Christy42 wrote: »

I don't know if two white old people on a ballot is the best idea for the Democratic audience. Still a younger member of the party that was supportive of Sanders might be ideal. Not sure who though. Bonus points if they are a minority.

The Bernie Sanders supporter demographic is indeed ironic, somewhat inexplicable, given that the oldest running candidate for 2016 president has the largest youth segment. The millions of US college and university students are in general wild about him, and these students just might overcome their historic reluctance to do more than make a lot of noise during rallies, and actually go to the polls for a Bernie Vice President 8 November 2016, especially if he can get policy concessions from Hillary Clinton in exchange for becoming her VP running mate. Hillary is already adopting one of Sanders early platform planks of debt-free college education. But not to worry, Clinton will not pick Sanders, that would be too smart a move.

In terms of Hillary Clinton and Sanders being white, I doubt that will be an issue for Clinton with Hispanics and Blacks, both of whom generally hate Trump (who is also white) in sufficient numbers for what he has repeatedly said during his campaign about them, and other minorities. And the political joke about Hillary's husband Bill is that he was the first Black president, and opened his first offices after leaving the presidency in a largely Black neighborhood, which as very popular with that voting demographic.

More than likely Trump will not pick an Hispanic or Black VP running mate, because that may be cause for him to lose many of his white male voting segment, especially those that cheer whenever he talks about the Trump Wall or deporting millions of Mexicans and Hispanics. Methinks Trump will pick a white male VP running mate, probably a politician from a state with lots of EC votes.

Rjd2

For what it's worth Julian Castro is the fav to get the vice president nomination at the moment with the bookies and most debates online are suggesting Clinton will pick him.

Warren the second fav.