2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
I think Sanders deserves the presidency for this
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...eilly-vows-to-move-to-ireland-if-sanders-wins
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...eilly-vows-to-move-to-ireland-if-sanders-wins
Yup, I've read that in some articles. Young voters no longer fall into the 2-party system.
ANd he stopped, as soon as he stopped winning the Republican polls. Have you seen how consistent the head-to-head trends have been?
If they were as random as you are making out, wouldn't there be some scope for more randomness in the results themselves. Yet every set of polls (not every individual poll but every set by a particular company) has the same trend: Sanders outperforms Clinton, Rubio is the best Repub bet, Trump would get destroyed.
I'm not comfortable dismissing something that has been so consistent.
My argument isn't that Sanders has a good chance vs the Republicans, it is that Clinton has an equally uphill battle (not due to policies but because non-Dems dislike/hate her.)
Christie is going to get bigger, but the field might become smaller.
Well, you certainly got this one right! Back to the tea leaves for me, then.
Ah, I spent 2014-15 in the UK, during which I got to watch both the Scottish referendum and the UK GE and I was extremely surprised by the impressions I drew politically. My outsider's take - please tell me if I'm way off - was that both main parties are actually fairly close together substantively though not rhetorically (not sure how true this is post-Corbyn since I really only have access to our thread for information on that). Coincidentally or consequentially, a hell of a lot of people hate both parties with a passion (particularly young people, very few of whom seem to vote, particularly ethnic minorities). Consequentially, turnout is generally fairly low (70%?), and the momentum is generally with the many smaller but still viable parties. Consequentially, tactical voting isn't just a thing but the thing.
Under these circumstances, the 538 model, which tries as far as possible to look only to numbers, is basically doomed, I'd say. It's impossible to get it right without a heavy analysis of subjective factors, unlike in America.
Being a commonwealth student I could actually have voted in your GE btw, but I thought it would be disrespectful to do so.
I actually want him to win now, this would be amazing!
Well, Hillary's favorables was sky high prior to the email stuff, and in this volatile cycle I wouldn't put it past the independents to come round once the dust has settled. I'm not saying these polls aren't accurate, I'm just saying that they apply to a particular moment in time, and things change very quickly in politics. Clinton fares poorly with independents on character tests, but her policies are palatable to most of them. The reverse, I suspect, is true for Sanders.
I wasn't looking at the numbers so much before he entered, so am not sure...But now her unfavourables will be emails+flip-flooping+Wall Street (if it's Trump).
President Bernie wouldn't accomplish anything. Obama was nothing like him, yet the Republican controlled house didn't let him do much....what do you think they would with Bernie?
His one term presidency would be one of the most ineffective in American history.
His one term presidency would be one of the most ineffective in American history.
And you expect the republicans to work with Hillary?
I know it's far easier said than done, but why are people so ready to bring up the notion of a hostile congress as if nobody on the Bernie side of the fence has thought about it?
He's said it since the start; there would have to be a grass roots effort to bring in fresh blood at other tiers of government in order to make his "revolution" viable. He knows it full well, and there are already efforts underway to provide alternatives to status quo candidates, and to fund them and bring out the vote for them. Obviously it's easier said than done, but nobody's saying that Bernie in the White House = massive change.
He's said it since the start; there would have to be a grass roots effort to bring in fresh blood at other tiers of government in order to make his "revolution" viable. He knows it full well, and there are already efforts underway to provide alternatives to status quo candidates, and to fund them and bring out the vote for them. Obviously it's easier said than done, but nobody's saying that Bernie in the White House = massive change.
I ball I ball like Kobe in the fall
CNN pretty quick to drop the Commie tag on Berniehttp://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/bernie-sanders-kibbutz-volunteer-israel/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/bernie-sanders-kibbutz-volunteer-israel/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/bernie-sanders-kibbutz-volunteer-israel/index.html
More so than Bernie. For example, she isn't going to touch the tax codes and her foreign policy is pretty hawkish.
You are underestimating the right wing hate for Hillary.
Not at all, I know they cant stand her and she has a history. But, you are underestimating how obstructionist the Republicans will be with a 'socialist' president.
Obama did almost nothing to change the status quo and look what he faced, Bernie would face a million times worse.
Anyways...this conversation is moot, Hillary will get the nomination.
God no. We don't want him.
He clearly hasn't thought it through either. He'd be left paying Irish tax and US expatriate tax, he'd have to leave his guns behind, put up with all our kids getting free education and turn a blind eye to our very generous welfare system. That's before we even consider all the gay marriages he'd have to attend.
I can tell you what's going to happen, Chris, you're going to have to breathe that deep breath put again.
Last edited:
I am now as reliable as a coin flip! Didn't actually expect Rubio to do this badly though, wow. Surely he's done now?Well, you certainly got this one right! Back to the tea leaves for me, then.
They're both closed primaries, so only registered Dems can vote, who Hillary does much better with. Plus, they both have higher proportions of minorities. Delegates are also an issue - despite Bernie running up the score here, he got a total of 6 delegates more than Hillary. If Hillary got a similar blowout in somewhere like Florida, she'd get about 60 more than Bernie.
American politics confuses me...how many of these primaries are there?
All the states do something plus some of the U.S. territories
Feck knows mate. It's not even just primaries. Some have caucuses, whatever that is, others have both, I think. I don't know. Been following the thread for ages and I'm still clueless on the actual election system.
Still, the whole process has grown on me a little. It's so much more exciting than our elections, if nothing else. Like a tournament, almost. You follow the team news, analyse who's better at what, make predictions on the outcomes, watch the games (debates, primaries).
So it's basically just a leftwing version of the Tea Party?
I guess you could put it that way. It would be analogous in the same way that Metallica and Backstreet Boys are both boy bands.
Correct. They may hate the Clintons but they also work with them.
But it's exactly what the Tea Party do. They don't like the establishment candidates and think they're corrupt, so put up their own candidates within the party, help them fundraise, campaign for them, all in order to drag the debate in their direction.
I also think this "revolution" rhetoric is really, really, really stupid. The GOP would be able to just put up a picture of a hammer and sickle and stick a "Donate for America" button next to it.
one difference is, that Sander´s politics are more or less classic social democratic positions. There are various developed countries in the world that are following that path. I am not an advocate of it, but he doesn´t promoted some untested crazy ideas. The tea party on the other side promotes fairly extreme ideas, that have only little precedent. They are also openly racist bigots, which Sanders is clearly not.
Sure. I'm just saying that putting the Sanders movement next to the Tea Party movement can also come across as ridiculous, considering the fact that the Tea Party movement is so reactionary, ill-informed, and inhumane in its views that it is the anti-thesis of the Bernie movement in so many ways.
Cue somebody saying that that sounds exactly like Sanders' movement... If anybody feels that *shrug*
And Bernie's been up front and has owned the labels that everybody said would weigh him down. Conventional wisdom doesn't apply here.
Incidentally, Bernie has raised 2,6 million dollars since the polls closed, as of 12:30 am (not sure which timezone in the US, it's courtesy of this fella:
Every month he's raising more and more money, faster and faster. Yesterday people were having a hard time getting their donations processed because the system was being flooded with requests. The movement is real.
All the states have primaries or caucuses. Primaries are organized by government (like main elections), while caucuses are organized by each party.
The rules vary from state to state, in some states, winner takes all delegates, in some other states, they get delegates proportionally based on the number of votes. Add the superdelegate votes (generally they are current (both parties) and ex (only Democratic party) presidents, senators, members of the house of representatives, and I am not sure but maybe also secretaries) and each party nominates a candidate to represent the party in the election.
I didn't say he was in the Tea Party
Obviously their positions are different on the issues (though plenty of your classic Tea Party types aren't the racist loonies, they're just obsessed with small government).Antithesis isn't a bad way of putting it actually, given that thesis and antithesis are inherently linked, one a reaction to the other. It's a polarisation, one party lurches to the right, the other to the left. People on the right feel that they're the morally better ones as well, and they also have plenty of highly intelligent people among their ranks.
@Ubik
While the news was dominated by the primary yesterday, there was an article below the headlines saying that the SC has blocked Obama's executive orders on climate change.
Given that Dems do not have the house majority and Senate supermajority that they would need to overcome this, it means, quite literally, the apocalypse is a few years closer. My generations is fecked. It is not fecked because we didn't know. It is fecked because both parties, but one in particular, is so completely and transparently the party of corporate interests including oil interests that they are willing to sell out future generations, publicly and proudly. Campaign finance and in particular Citizens United have, apart from a million smaller impacts, fecked my generation.
If that is not worthy of a "popular revolution" and an insurgent movement that changes the conversation as dramaticaly as the Tea Party did, I don't know what is.
While the news was dominated by the primary yesterday, there was an article below the headlines saying that the SC has blocked Obama's executive orders on climate change.
Given that Dems do not have the house majority and Senate supermajority that they would need to overcome this, it means, quite literally, the apocalypse is a few years closer. My generations is fecked. It is not fecked because we didn't know. It is fecked because both parties, but one in particular, is so completely and transparently the party of corporate interests including oil interests that they are willing to sell out future generations, publicly and proudly. Campaign finance and in particular Citizens United have, apart from a million smaller impacts, fecked my generation.
If that is not worthy of a "popular revolution" and an insurgent movement that changes the conversation as dramaticaly as the Tea Party did, I don't know what is.
So did the Nazis/Backstreet Boys.
Agree with your point, on the whole, but I also think 'It's not the same 'cause they're 'orrible and reactionary and we're lovely and thoughtful' is a perfectly valid argument here.
It is more than worthy of it, but the problem is that around half (if not more) of Americans might think that global warming isn't real, while a lot of people in the other half, underestimate it. It is a shame that Gore didn't became president in 2000. Still think that the world in general (and in particular, the global warming problem) would have gone into a completely different direction if Gore became president instead of Bush.
Now, I think that not much will change. Whoever wins from democrats (be it Bernie or more than likely, Clinton) would be highly hated from GOP, and so they would be united against the president like they were against Obama. Considering that generally the senate and house are controlled from the other party (not the one which has the president), they would block Hillary's policies like they did with Obama's. And of course, that is the best case scenario. If someone from the other lunatics wins (especially the king of lunatics, Cruz), then they might decide to fight global warming by generating more carbon dioxide.
Btw, after winning 60-38 yesterday, Bernie fell further behind in delegates since the superdelegates all went to Hillary, with the race finishing 15-13 in her favour. If he wins by popular vote and they don't switch, I'm pretty sure that Hillary will have a historical defeat in the general election.
EDIT: source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-02-09
EDIT: source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-02-09
Last edited:
Not necessarily. Hillary won by popular vote in 2008 (although that may be debated to death, considering what happened in Michigan and Florida), and then Obama easily won in main election.
Anyway, superdelegates generally follow pledged delegates. In 2008, at the beginning, Hillary had almost all superdelegates, but in the end 2/3 of them went for Obama, when Obama was winning the pledged delegates.
I love the smell of Humble Pie in the morning!
You're gonna have to explain that to me cos superdelegates is a whole new dimension to me. How can they choose her when she lost?
- Status