2016 Election Thread

[DaveW]

 

 

On the other side of the coin, Clinton's lead is pretty much built on states that have something approximating a zero chance of going blue in November (basically, the South).

 

 

This really doesn't have anything do to with anything and even worse it's not even true, First off, it's not like suddenly Washington or Oregon are going to turn Red because Bernie isn't the nomination.

 

Also Hilary has "won" several blue states or potential Blue States including Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Mass, Virginia and is going to win NY and CA. Hell she won Texas which has the potential to turn blue if it is Hilary vs Trump.

Ohio and Florida are much more important to the dems then WA, Oregon and Alaska at this stage, 3 states that would never turn red.

[DaveW]

 

 

Do you realize Sanders was arrested at a Civil Rights protest in 1963, right?

 

I honestly thought this was sarcasm at first. I mean, good on him, he was/is a hippie, but he actually hasn't done anything meaningful in his political career to actually help the black community. Marching in a protest isn't something "meaningful" and it certainly isn't recent. That was 60+ years ago for petes sake!

 

First of all, he has done much of anything period in his senate career, and second of all, Vermont is like the whitest place on earth anyways, so he wasn't doing anything of note for the black community as a local politician as well.

Again you don't have to take my word for it, just look at the raw numbers, there is a very good reason why he is getting beat by 40-50% (or more) across the board with the minority vote.

[Squirrel]

On the other side of the coin, Clinton's lead is pretty much built on states that have something approximating a zero chance of going blue in November (basically, the South).

 

I mean, I'm going to vote for whichever Dem wins because the GOP field is so horrific and scary but Clinton has her share of "questionable" delegate wins, just like Sanders.

Perhaps. What I see is Clinton winning in states with more diverse populations. And that is going to matter greatly in the Fall. And most Bernie supporters will support Clinton in November. The ones that won't are the ones who wouldn't have voted for her anyway. And I don't say that to disparage Bernie or his supporters. He's fought a good fight, made issues relevant even if his solutions were a bit far-fetched, and showed that a socialist can garner wide support which hopefully will motivate the Democrats to quit pulling too far right.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This really doesn't have anything do to with anything and even worse it's not even true, First off, it's not like suddenly Washington or Oregon are going to turn Red because Bernie isn't the nomination.

 

Also Hilary has "won" several blue states or potential Blue States including Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Mass, Virginia and is going to win NY and CA. Hell she won Texas which has the potential to turn blue if it is Hilary vs Trump.

Ohio and Florida are much more important to the dems then WA, Oregon and Alaska at this stage, 3 states that would never turn red.

All valid points (except for the bolded). I didn't say Clinton has only won red states, I said her lead was built on red states.

 

And that's pretty much true if you look at the numbers.

 

As for the bolded... It's laughable to think Texas has any chance of going blue in this election. Texas last went blue in a presidential election well before you were born, Dave... Hell, Texas last went blue in an election before I was born.

[DaveW]

 

 

Four of the last six were caucus states. I don't really count those wins. And Hillary was never projected to win Washington or Wisconsin.

Yeah the Caucus crap needs to go, in an age where everyone can be just as informed as everyone else, there is no reason why it shouldn't be just a traditional vote. The caucus structure as a whole takes away people's privacy to vote for a candidate they want, plus it's a huge pain in the ass time wise and annoyance wise.

[Squirrel]

All valid points (except for the bolded). I didn't say Clinton has only won red states, I said her lead was built on red states.

 

And that's pretty much true if you look at the numbers.

 

As for the bolded... It's laughable to think Texas has any chance of going blue in this election. Texas last went blue in a presidential election well before you were born, Dave... Hell, Texas last went blue in an election before I was born.

Hey now. Quit with the agist crap. Texas has gone blue in my lifetime.

[DaveW]

 

 

 

As for the bolded... It's laughable to think Texas has any chance of going blue in this election. Texas last went blue in a presidential election well before you were born, Dave... Hell, Texas last went blue in an election before I was born.

Texas eventually going Blue sooner rather than later is something that has been talked about since the 2012 election,

 

Here is an article from 6+ months ago on it: http://www.greenvillegazette.com/p/83658/

Here is one from 2014: https://newrepublic.com/article/119951/democrats-hope-battleground-texas-can-turn-state-blue-can-it

 

While I think it might be another 8 years for it to "turn" Blue, I wouldn't be surprised that if Trump was the nomination that the Hispanic vote came out in droves to vote against him (for Hilary), the odds still then are iffy, but it would be a heck of a lot closer than one would assume.

[nicksaviking]

 

All valid points (except for the bolded). I didn't say Clinton has only won red states, I said her lead was built on red states.

 

And that's pretty much true if you look at the numbers.

 

As for the bolded... It's laughable to think Texas has any chance of going blue in this election. Texas last went blue in a presidential election well before you were born, Dave... Hell, Texas last went blue in an election before I was born.

 

Agreed it wouldn't go Blue exactly, though I think if the ballot has Clinton, Trump AND Cruz/Kasich/The Corpse of Reagan, all bets are off on who actually takes the state. Obama got 41% of Texas votes in 2012, if there are three people on the ballot and Democrat voters turn out in the same numbers, 41% is probably going to win Clinton every single state.

[DaveW]

Agreed it wouldn't go Blue exactly, though I think if the ballot has Clinton, Trump AND Cruz/Kasich/The Corpse of Reagan, all bets are off on who actually takes the state. Obama got 41% of Texas votes in 2012, if there are three people on the ballot and Democrat voters turn out in the same numbers, 41% is probably going to win Clinton every single state.

The amazing thing about Obama getting 41% in 2012 is that it all happened with him

Basically ignoring Texas/didn't use any resources in Texas in the 2012 general election.

 

4 years later the Hispanic voting population has continued to rise, and if Hilary were to focus on them and the state in a race against Trump a guy who literally crapped all over the Mexican population, things could get petty close.

[nicksaviking]

 

The amazing thing about Obama getting 41% in 2012 is that it all happened with him
Basically ignoring Texas/didn't use any resources in Texas in the 2012 general election.

4 years later the Hispanic voting population has continued to rise, and if Hilary were to focus on them and the state in a race against Trump a guy who literally crapped all over the Mexican population, things could get petty close.

 

Hispanic voters and the state is no longer able to pretend that Austin doesn't exist.

 

Still, they might again vote on succession (and build a wall around their entire border, and kick out all the Hispanics) if they look like they might go blue.

 

If the ballot is mano e mano Clinton still wouldn't win if she chose Julian Castro as a running mate, but she might do better than Obama's 41%.

[DaveW]

 

Hispanic voters and the state is no longer able to pretend that Austin doesn't exist.

 

Still, they might again vote on succession (and build a wall around their entire border, and kick out all the Hispanics) if they look like they might go blue.

 

If the ballot is mano e mano Clinton still wouldn't win if she chose Julian Castro as a running mate, but she might do better than Obama's 41%.

I guess it depends on who she would be running against, if it's Trump I really think all bets are off, not only in Texas but across the board. Trump could be absolutely destroyed/exposed (even more so) during the GE debates and I could see the independents coming out in droves to vote for Hilary in that scenario.

[Craig Arko]

I'd be okay if Texas secedes from the Union. They have that right.

[Mike Sixel]

There are days I wonder how it would be if we just split into two countries, and let the South become a 2nd world country.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The amazing thing about Obama getting 41% in 2012 is that it all happened with him
Basically ignoring Texas/didn't use any resources in Texas in the 2012 general election.

4 years later the Hispanic voting population has continued to rise, and if Hilary were to focus on them and the state in a race against Trump a guy who literally crapped all over the Mexican population, things could get petty close.

I think that's the future outcome of Texas but I just don't see it in this election cycle unless Trump goes rogue and runs independently (which he easily could do, the guy is arrogant enough to try to destroy the GOP ticket because he didn't like the nomination results).

[Squirrel]

 

I think that's the future outcome of Texas but I just don't see it in this election cycle unless Trump goes rogue and runs independently (which he easily could do, the guy is arrogant enough to try to destroy the GOP ticket because he didn't like the nomination results).

What would happen if both Trump and Sanders ran in the general ... Trump as an Independent, Sanders as a Socialist, Hillary as a Dem, Cruz as a Rep ... who wins?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What would happen if both Trump and Sanders ran in the general ... Trump as an Independent, Sanders as a Socialist, Hillary as a Dem, Cruz as a Rep ... who wins?

The media.

[Mike Sixel]

 

What would happen if both Trump and Sanders ran in the general ... Trump as an Independent, Sanders as a Socialist, Hillary as a Dem, Cruz as a Rep ... who wins?

 

The electoral college voters.

[Willihammer]

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/

 

Sort of goes to the point that a lot of us have been having issues with Bernie all along, once the actual questions come on how he will actually achieve his campaign promises, this go......poorly. If this was Hilary she would be getting crucified by people.

 

Keep in mind the NYDN has been pretty "pro-bernie" throughout the campaign, so this isn't some hatchet job.

(direct link to NYDN article: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306)

 

I really wish voters demanded journalism like this and I give Bernie a lot of credit for even consenting to the interview. "OK, let's say you win the election. Then what?"

[DaveW]

 

What would happen if both Trump and Sanders ran in the general ... Trump as an Independent, Sanders as a Socialist, Hillary as a Dem, Cruz as a Rep ... who wins?

It would be a complete disaster, in that case nobody gets the required electoral college votes to "win", so then it goes to the house of representatives for a vote.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It would be a complete disaster, in that case nobody gets the required electoral college votes to "win", so then it goes to the house of representatives for a vote.

 

So, Cruz.

[TheLeviathan]

It's great Sanders is winning states, but pretty much everyone agrees he needs to be closer to 70% than 50% for it to matter.  This is also is softest part of the schedule, so we'll see what happens next.

[Craig Arko]

 

So, Cruz.

And the resulting lawsuit(s) probably wind up in the SCOTUS.

[Mike Sixel]

 

And the resulting lawsuit(s) probably wind up in the SCOTUS.

 

Which only has 8 justices......meaning the vote would likely stand.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This is an interesting thing I noticed this morning... Were the polls just flat-out wrong or is Sanders continuing to gain momentum? Hard to say... While Wyoming is nothing more than a blip on the nomination map, it will be interesting to see if Sanders continues his march into the NY primary or whether he loses some momentum with a loss.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Which only has 8 justices......meaning the vote would likely stand.

This train of thought that leads back to SCOTUS is depressingly hilarious.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's great Sanders is winning states, but pretty much everyone agrees he needs to be closer to 70% than 50% for it to matter.  This is also is softest part of the schedule, so we'll see what happens next.

Yeah, he needs decisive victories or it's a looooooooong shot to win the nomination.

 

Though it's worth pointing out he still has +40-ish delegates owed him that have yet to be awarded in Washington... It appears their caucus system is even more unnecessarily complex than other states (only ~35 delegates have been awarded out of 101 possible).

[Mike Sixel]

He's not winning, but his candidacy and Trump's show just how fed up voters think they are*

 

*I say think they are because they'll still vote stupid party lines in their more local elections.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He's not winning, but his candidacy and Trump's show just how fed up voters think they are*

 

*I say think they are because they'll still vote stupid party lines in their more local elections.....

I try to avoid any and all news about local politicians because it's terrifying to read some of their viewpoints.

[Badsmerf]

 

I try to avoid any and all news about local politicians because it's terrifying to read some of their viewpoints.

Lets play guess who said this.

 

“Unfortunately she is now suffering from breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers,” she said in November 2004. “This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian.”

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Lets play guess who said this.

 

“Unfortunately she is now suffering from breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers,” she said in November 2004. “This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian.”

That has to be Bachmann. That's classic Crazy Eyes talk if I've ever seen it.