2016 Election Thread

[glunn]

 

Side note: where is Bernie getting all the money? In the week leading up to Arizona's primary yesterday, I saw at least 40 Bernie ads on TV, probably more. Not one Trump ad, a couple each for Clinton and Cruz.

 

Millions of small donations.  His supporters get emails several times per week and they are inspiring.  Today he was outraged about people in Maricopa County having to wait as long as 5 hours to vote, because the Republicans cut the number of polling places from around 200 to around 60.  After reading the email I was also outraged. 

[glunn]

Three more things about Bernie:

 

1.  If he can go to the convention with more elected delegates than Hillary, then there is a chance that the superdelegates will not want to thwart the will of the voters.

 

2.  He has plausible plans for paying for his proposals.  https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

 

3.  There have been polls showing him doing better against Trump than Hillary.

[DaveW]

Three more things about Bernie:

 

1. If he can go to the convention with more elected delegates than Hillary, then there is a chance that the superdelegates will not want to thwart the will of the voters.

 

2. He has plausible plans for paying for his proposals. https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

 

3. There have been polls showing him doing better against Trump than Hillary.

Few things:

 

He doesn't have a close to a realistic path to get more pledged delegates then Hillary at this time.

 

Him closing those tax loopholes from businesses routing things through the Cayman Islands will only result in a lot of those companies moving off US soil, no? That all sounds fine in theory, but it's not going to happen.

 

Also, raising taxes on everyone basically is not a winning strategy. It's going to impact small businesses owners quite a bit. And sending everyone to college for free is simply going to make a work force that isn't cut my out to handle any blue collar jobs.

 

Yes some polls have him doing well v Trump, but those polls are done so early in the game that a ton changes and those cant be counted on (fivethirtyeight touches on that quite a bit)

[Squirrel]

 

Three more things about Bernie:

 

1.  If he can go to the convention with more elected delegates than Hillary, then there is a chance that the superdelegates will not want to thwart the will of the voters.

 

2.  He has plausible plans for paying for his proposals.  https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

 

3.  There have been polls showing him doing better against Trump than Hillary.

1. Could happen, but it would take a lot for him to go to the convention with more pledged delegates. He would have to win by large margins in some of the remaining big states to do that. At this point, superdelegates could go with anyone. In 2008, it was said that many would go with Hillary, but then when Obama was winning and pulling well away, they did go with the 'will of the people' and they could do that here, too ... if Bernie pulls out the lead. Just a reminder ... Hillary is further ahead of Bernie than Obama was ahead of Hillary at this point in 2008.

 

2. I'm not sure his plans are plausible. Yes, they could work ... if voted on and enacted. But unless Congress really swings and the Democrats take control of both the House and the Senate, I don't see it happening. And since that's a pretty big if, I don't see those plans as plausible.

 

3. There are polls showing Hillary doing better than Bernie against Trump, too. There are polls showing Trump winning, too. I don't find polls too believable.

[glunn]

 

1. Could happen, but it would take a lot for him to go to the convention with more pledged delegates. He would have to win by large margins in some of the remaining big states to do that. At this point, superdelegates could go with anyone. In 2008, it was said that many would go with Hillary, but then when Obama was winning and pulling well away, they did go with the 'will of the people' and they could do that here, too ... if Bernie pulls out the lead. Just a reminder ... Hillary is further ahead of Bernie than Obama was ahead of Hillary at this point in 2008.

 

2. I'm not sure his plans are plausible. Yes, they could work ... if voted on and enacted. But unless Congress really swings and the Democrats take control of both the House and the Senate, I don't see it happening. And since that's a pretty big if, I don't see those plans as plausible.

 

3. There are polls showing Hillary doing better than Bernie against Trump, too. There are polls showing Trump winning, too. I don't find polls too believable.

 

Those are all fair points.

 

What bugs me the most is that we are the only advanced advanced nation in the world without universal health care, yet we spend far more per capita than any other country and get mediocre results.  It seems clear to me that the system has been gamed by the special interests (insurance companies, big pharma and big hospital chains).  Although this is part of a larger rape of the public, the health care situation makes me the angriest because a substantial number of people, including children, suffer and die because our system is corrupt. 

 

How can any American not be ashamed of the fact that children die in our country who would have been cured if they had been born in Europe or even Cuba?

 

I also disagree with Dave's statement that if we crack down on corporate inversions then more companies will move overseas. One simple solution would be to disregard an inversion where the real management stays in the U.S.  If Pfizer wants to be treated as an Irish company then a majority of the highest paid executives must move from New York City to Ireland.  It's fun to think about how the top executives would explain this to their families. 

 

I like Bernie because he is showing us that the establishment emperor is not only naked, he is also corrupt.  I disagree with Bernie on lots of issues, but I am thrilled that he is giving us messages that I think that people should consider.

 

I am old enough to have lived through some massive lies that destroyed millions of lives -- including the domino theory and the Vietnam War.  Now there are reports that the war on drugs may have been totally insincere -- I pray that our young people will become critical thinkers and not trust anyone, including Bernie, and I think that Bernie has at minimum done us a service by getting people to think outside the establishment box.

[Squirrel]

 

 

 

I like Bernie because he is showing us that the establishment emperor is not only naked, he is also corrupt.  I disagree with Bernie on lots of issues, but I am thrilled that he is giving us messages that I think that people should consider.

 

 

And yet, Bernie is part of the establishment and has been for 20-30 years. It's disingenuous to me to cry anti-establishment when he is part of it; and, further, has been part of it for longer than Hillary. Where was Bernie when the ACA was passed in 2008? Why was he not trying to to get his colleagues to do more? The Dems passed what they could; if they had tried to pass more, they wouldn't have had the votes and nothing would have been done. But I heard nothing from Bernie during this. I agree we should have single-payer ... no question ... but how we get there, I just don't think he'll get us there. If he couldn't get the votes in 2008, when the Democrats had the majority, how is he going to get those votes when they don't? He's just not a true leader, imo. He speaks a good game, for sure; I, too, like a lot of what he's saying. I just don't believe IN him and don't think he will make a good president.

[Craig Arko]

I'm guessing there are a lot of you out there who have been reading these threads, but have not joined in. For whatever reasons.

 

It would be a fine thing to hear some new voices, and some original ideas. Remember, it's your home too. Might as well chime in about it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I just don't see it Brock, I don't see how it's advancing any further. I think Michigan was the peak.

I think we have a tendency to assume the average American is paying attention to the election as closely as we do on this thread when that isn't the case. Sure, Bernie has a strong internet presence due to his rabid Internet-savvy following but there are millions of Americans who consume news through different channels.

 

For example, has Bernie's message really spread in California for those who aren't looped into Internet news? I doubt it. They won't really get his message until he makes public appearances in CA (and is covered by local news/newspapers) and runs television ads that increase local awareness.

 

At some point we fall into the trap of diminishing returns but I'm not sure we're there yet, as two of the most populous states in the union have yet to vote.

[TheLeviathan]

You may be right about the message being out more in states that haven't vited, I just find it unlikely he's converting anybody else at this point.

 

And the super delegates would be fools to switch to a nominee that can't generate any traction with non-white voters.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And the super delegates would be fools to switch to a nominee that can't generate any traction with non-white voters.

Agreed. I'm tired of hearing Bernie supporters bitch about super delegates.

 

Super delegates are in place to avoid the situation happening on the other side of the aisle right now. I can't believe people are so dense they don't realize the safety net they provide the Democrats (even though I don't necessarily agree with what's happening with the supers right this moment).

[Mike Sixel]

 

Agreed. I'm tired of hearing Bernie supporters bitch about super delegates.

 

Super delegates are in place to avoid the situation happening on the other side of the aisle right now. I can't believe people are so dense they don't realize the safety net they provide the Democrats (even though I don't necessarily agree with what's happening with the supers right this moment).

 

In a 2 party system, imo, the people should have more power over choosing the parties' candidates than the party does. In a 4-6 party system? Go for it, choose whatever candidate you want. But, I think, in a 2 party system? The people need more power.

[Squirrel]

 

Agreed. I'm tired of hearing Bernie supporters bitch about super delegates.

 

Super delegates are in place to avoid the situation happening on the other side of the aisle right now. I can't believe people are so dense they don't realize the safety net they provide the Democrats (even though I don't necessarily agree with what's happening with the supers right this moment).

Do you know the history of super delegates? My mom remembers all the discussion about it when the party adopted these rules. There was a lot of stuff going on between the states and the national party. It was after the disastrous '84 election where Mondale lost every state but Minnesota. Many of the party leaders from individual states were enraged because the national ticket brought down the elections within the states. There were massive losses everywhere because of the Mondale ticket. And the states wanted more rights in choosing who would be on that ticket to try and avert such a landslide that would affect losses within the states. So super delegates were formed. Or something like that. And, actually, one of Bernie's advisors was among the group who came up with this plan. Given that, I don't know of a time where super delegates really changed the outcome of the primaries. Back in 2008 as I said above, many said they would be with Hillary until Obama showed that he could carry a lot of the voting. At that point many of them went with him because that's where the votes were going. Not sure I explained all of this quite right, but that's kind of how I understand it. And the delegate totals so far that is being reported is of pledged delegates ... delegates won from the primary elections and caucuses. So Berners are really off on how this process works. I also had a 'discussion' with a friend on FB who is passing around a survey to get Bernie to run as an independent if he doesn't win the nom, claiming that Bernie is actually winning the popular vote. I'm like ... 'What?' No, he's not. And if we'd abandon the caucus system entirely, which we should because it's a system that is disenfranchising and dates back to a time when only white men were able to vote, I'd guess that many of the caucus states would have a different or closer outcome.

[Mike Sixel]

As long as the masses are choosing candidates, the caucus system should for choosing candidates. It can stay for other party business, I guess.

 

As for super delegates and the party controlling the process more, there are arguments on both sides to be made.

[Squirrel]

To add to what I just said, the influence/affect of super delegates would only come into to play if they felt someone would truly bring down the whole party, state by state. That's why the super delegates are comprised of state party leaders. But for them to do a 180 from what voters have said, I've yet to see that.

[Squirrel]

 

As long as the masses are choosing candidates, the caucus system should for choosing candidates. It can stay for other party business, I guess.

 

As for super delegates and the party controlling the process more, there are arguments on both sides to be made.

The caucus system should not be for choosing candidates, at all. They need to abolish caucuses in place of fair elections. Caucuses are the most disenfranchising system.

[Squirrel]

 

As long as the masses are choosing candidates, the caucus system should for choosing candidates. It can stay for other party business, I guess.

 

As for super delegates and the party controlling the process more, there are arguments on both sides to be made.

The super delegate thing is more for state vs national 'control.' I don't know of a time when super delegates changed the outcome of the voters. It's more of a fall back in case. Not really sure if I agree with that or not, but it isn't going to affect the outcome of this election.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The caucus system should not be for choosing candidates, at all. They need to abolish caucuses in place of fair elections. Caucuses are the most disenfranchising system.

 

dang, I missed a word or two......that should read "the caucus system should NOT be for choosing delegates"

[Mike Sixel]

 

The super delegate thing is more for state vs national 'control.' I don't know of a time when super delegates changed the outcome of the voters. It's more of a fall back in case. Not really sure if I agree with that or not, but it isn't going to affect the outcome of this election.

 

The states had their say in picking the "non super" delegates. That's my point. As long as there are only really 2 choices, the people need more power, not less power. YMMV, of course.

[Squirrel]

 

The states had their say in picking the "non super" delegates. That's my point. As long as there are only really 2 choices, the people need more power, not less power. YMMV, of course.

If people voted maybe they'd have more power not less. But given only two options, if you don't like either, no power. I felt that way for the last two mayoral races here in Chicago. There were more than two choices, but I didn't like ANY of them. What then? I submitted a blank when it came to mayor.

[DaveW]

Hilary is winning the popular vote thus far against Bernie, thus she has more delegates. I don't see how the "people" don't have the "voice" in this situation.

 

The Super Delegate thing seems like a fail safe in case something crazy happens.

 

I also don't like how the primaries are spread out so far, I think they should all be held on the same day. After that you can hold a second set a month later once the field is narrowed down.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Hilary is winning the popular vote thus far against Bernie, thus she has more delegates. I don't see how the "people" don't have the "voice" in this situation.

 

The Super Delegate thing seems like a fail safe in case something crazy happens.

 

I also don't like how the primaries are spread out so far, I think they should all be held on the same day. After that you can hold a second set a month later once the field is narrowed down.

 

I am in general agreement that having, say, 3 primary days where people are whittled out would make some sense. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

If people voted maybe they'd have more power not less. But given only two options, if you don't like either, no power. I felt that way for the last two mayoral races here in Chicago. There were more than two choices, but I didn't like ANY of them. What then? I submitted a blank when it came to mayor.

 

I'm talking specifically about the nomination process here......not the election process. And, sometimes, even when there are really more than 2 real choices, all of them will be not good. It is going to happen.

[Squirrel]

 

I'm talking specifically about the nomination process here......not the election process. And, sometimes, even when there are really more than 2 real choices, all of them will be not good. It is going to happen.

Well, I'm a little torn by the nominating process. Part of me thinks its the party's decision whom to put forth in the general. And by 'party's decision' I'm referring to a vote of its membership, not the leadership making that decision. That's why I think closed primaries are the best. But then it leaves people out who don't want to be a member of any party, or declare themselves as such, but like a particular candidate and wants to vote for that person without allegiance to a party. Part of me says, well, so be it. Get involved and work for what you want. And if you don't want to be involved, then wait until the general election. If we had more parties maybe more people would feel compelled to be involved to the finest level. But we don't. This is part of the problem with Bernie vs Hillary. Part of me doesn't like Bernie because he has NEVER supported any party, has never been a member of any party, and joined the Democratic party last year for the sole purpose of running as a Democrat. While I believe he did so as to not split the party, knowing that in a two-party system, that's how it works. But part of me feels he's a bit of a hypocrite to want the support of that party and its members when he's spent a lifetime eschewing them. I get that it was mostly done to put forth an agenda he felt was not being addressed, but it still doesn't sit right with me.

[PseudoSABR]

Here's a really thorough state-by-state breakdown of whether Trump can win enough delegates:  http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/assessing-trumps-path-to-1237/ 

Worth the read, or at least a glance or two.

[Craig Arko]

Trump or Cruz; do I shoot myself or slit my throat? Very tough choice.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Here's a really thorough state-by-state breakdown of whether Trump can win enough delegates:  http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/assessing-trumps-path-to-1237/ 

Worth the read, or at least a glance or two.

 

Right now Wisconsin is polling Trump 32.5 Cruz 27.5  with 13.5 for Kasich (meaning there are a ton of Rubio votes available) this article predicts Trump wins Wisconsin, if he doesn't that's a huge swing that would if all other predictions are right leave him way short.  Predictit has Cruz at a 60% favorite.

[stringer bell]

 

Right now Wisconsin is polling Trump 32.5 Cruz 27.5  with 13.5 for Kasich (meaning there are a ton of Rubio votes available) this article predicts Trump wins Wisconsin, if he doesn't that's a huge swing that would if all other predictions are right leave him way short.  Predictit has Cruz at a 60% favorite.

Wisconsin is Winner Take All? I think the nomination could come down to wheter it is Cruz or Trump in Badgerland.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Wisconsin is Winner Take All? I think the nomination could come down to wheter it is Cruz or Trump in Badgerland.

 

Virtually winner take all, congressional districts also get delegates so a close 2nd should mean a handful of delegates.  A win by more then a couple % probably means at least a 38-4 delegate win

[mikecgrimes]

Reading that Cruz picked up an additional 10 delegates in Louisiana.  Still can't figure out if this decreases Trumps delegate count or if these weren't yet calculated in, Trump did pick up 1.  If this decreased Trumps delegate share then Wisconsin is virtually a must win for Trump.  Also reading that Trump is taking 9 days off the campaign.  Maybe we're setting up by dream scenario of trump revealing that this was all just a big April fools joke.

[DaveW]

Uh oh, apparently it's about to come out that Ted Cruz has had at least 5 extramarital affairs.

Now personally, I could care less who is banging who in Washington, but I don't think this is going to go over well with his "Christian values" crowd.

 

Also, I am shocked that there are 6 women in this world who would actually sleep with Ted Cruz.

Gross.