2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Traub said:
Yeah. I imagine it's similar to the national election? But also how some states are caucuses?? How does it work in these and other states - who actually gets to vote? Sorry I realise this probably isn't the thread for such basic questions :lol:
Click to expand...
Yeah it gets even more confusing when you realise there's also more than one type of primary and caucus :lol: List of all the Dem ones here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Handy Wiki definition of the different types:
Open: Individuals can vote regardless of their registered party affiliation.
  • Closed: One must be registered as a Democrat to vote in this election.
  • Semi-open: As long as one is not registered as a Republican, one can vote in this election.
  • Semi-closed: One must be registered as either a Democrat or undeclared to vote in this election.
Click to expand...

More often than not caucuses are closed and primaries are open, but you do get some variation as you'll see on the link. Nominees are chosen by the total number of delegates they collect, which for the Dems are awarded in each state proportionally according to the vote shares (as long as candidates pass the vote threshold of 15%), whilst the GOP has some states that are winner-takes-all as well. The Dem side is complicated by the inclusion of superdelegates, which is essentially the elected members of congress for the party, governors, party elders and members of the DNC, all in all numbering over 500 so a fair whack of the total. Hillary basically has these tied up but it's assumed that if Sanders was winning the other states, they'd have to switch over anyway or it would get quite awkward.

This is a fairly decent roundup overall - http://www.cfr.org/elections/us-presidential-nominating-process/p37522
 
diarm said:
I get that and even agree with it to an extent. But the current system is corrupt on a scale that even the vastest government would struggle to match. At least with a corrupt government, there are faces to put to crimes and theoretically be held accountable. But this is unknown faces behind the scenes, rigging the game via the electoral system, to corrupt from a safe haven behind their lobbyists and tv networks.

Lessening governance and regulation doesn't always lessen the impact on the small people either. Especially when the livelihoods or personal finances of those people can be wiped out by mistakes made by the bigger players enjoying the freedoms of such policy.

All my life, I have heard that America is supposed to be this beacon of democratic progress and opportunity. Yet all I see when I look at it is a mess.

If someone like Sanders could come in, even without achieving anything else in 4 years, and manage to fix the broken electoral system, I think history would look back at him as a man who did a great service. Even if he was seen as a failure in the short term.

If him and the electorate managed to muster and maintain enough enthusiasm to force through the rest of his policies, then America could finally call itself that icon of democratic progress we keep hearing about.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to forgive me for not having such a scathing opinion of the current state of US government and the country at large. Probably because I'm from a place that has always been worse, and is now grotesquely worse.

I 100% agree on the electoral system part though. If Sanders ran on that platform alone I'd probably be a huge supporter (and be a do-nothing President about the rest, completely unrealistic obviously). As much as I admire successful private enterprise, I admire fair government far more. And I know its doable because other countries have far shorter, less showbiz election cycles.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
These people are more suspicious of government the further it is from them. They're not usually as suspicious about their County and sometimes State officials, in part because they personally know some of them (if they don't trust them, at least they know where to go knocking to find them). They're suspicious about the Federal government above all, and in Sander's government no doubt the role of the Federal government would increase to new highs.

I do find that modern socialist discourse around the world, and Sanders included does have this contradiction: government is corrupt, but we need more of it. I know he'll insist that its good because his government won't be. Even if he can ensure that, 4 or 8 years later someone else we be in office. Because I agree government is corruptible, I generally look for there to be less of it so that possible corruption's impact. If you want to see what happens to a country when government becomes both immense (to help the poor allegedly) and corrupt, just read on up Brazil in the last year.
Click to expand...

Sanders said yesterday he knows there is waste and that needs to be looked at and reduced. That is exactly how I have thought about government too. We need to have very strong social security (I'm not just talking of the retirement payment here). But at the same time to cut wasteful spending. Corruption will exist in any form of government. In fact it exists a lot more in a government which is further right. Why do we have people at the top having so much money? They own the politicians and judges? We are not on a level playing field. The whole campaign Sanders is talking about is the Corruption of Money in politics.
 
@Raoul , do you like more Republicans or Democrats? Do you vote always for the same party, or decide based on the nominee? I had an impression that you're left wing.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
You're going to have to forgive me for not having such a scathing opinion of the current state of US government and the country at large. Probably because I'm from a place that has always been worse, and is now grotesquely worse..
Click to expand...

I should clarify that when I said mess, I was referring to their particular system of democracy as opposed to the country at large.
 
Canuckred64 said:
I agree with you about Hilary's " firewall" being minority voters and I am not surprised the gap between them is narrowing among minorities. Progressives have realised that Sanders is the true progressive and and I expect African Americans will figure out that while she talks the talk on minority issues, she is not Obama when it comes to walking the walk.

I just think he should defend himself against her attacks more strongly. If as you say he does have specifics about his economic plans, when she questions those plans in a debate , he has to provide the specifics. He maybe saying more in the town hall meetings, but we aren't getting the details in the debates. Most people never meet the candidate, they get their infro from the debates or the main stream media's take on the debate. I don't think the details of Sanders plan comes out in either of those cases.

Same goes for Clinton saying he is no different than the Rebulicans for his criticism of Obama. Sanders has to defend that more vigorously. I am not saying he should go negative, but he should at least point out she is not Obama's love child and there are areas where she differs with Obama.
Click to expand...

Sanders is having a meeting here in Minneapolis with a large African American crowd and will be taking questions from them. He is making the connection. I'm sure more details will be coming out about his plans.
 
@Ubik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states#Historical_party_strength

This is what I was talking about.
Also interesting how neatly the positions are reversed. In the 70s and 80s, Nixon-Ford-Reagen-Bush.
But the (very leftwing in comparison)Dems had the house and state govts.

Starting from 1992, Republicans have won only 1 general by popular vote. But since 1994 (after turning extreme right, and Dems go centre-right), they've had the house, and a crushing majority in the states. 11-31 is pathetic.

There's some trend here, I don't know what it is though.
 
Revan said:
@Raoul , do you like more Republicans or Democrats? Do you vote always for the same party, or decide based on the nominee? I had an impression that you're left wing.
Click to expand...

I'm politically pretty much a centrist who believes the only way to conduct effective governance in a bifurcated system is to elect centrist politicians who are willing to cooperate with the other side. Anything short of that results in political gridlock which undermines the effectiveness of governance.
 
Red Dreams said:
http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-opens-the-gates-to-unlimited-wall-street-funding/

The DNC Just Declared War on Bernie Sanders’ Political Revolution
Click to expand...
Is that a parody website?

Some other headlines:
"Bernie Sanders Just Delivered His Political Revolution"
"Here Are The Top 10 Quotes By Hillary's Friend and Monster Henry Kissinger"
"There's a Special Place In Hell for Madeleine Albright. Here's Why"
"The DNC Just Screwed Over Bernie Sanders and Spit in Voters' Faces"
 
Ubik said:
Is that a parody website?

Some other headlines:
"Bernie Sanders Just Delivered His Political Revolution"
"Here Are The Top 10 Quotes By Hillary's Friend and Monster Henry Kissinger"
"There's a Special Place In Hell for Madeleine Albright. Here's Why"
"The DNC Just Screwed Over Bernie Sanders and Spit in Voters' Faces"
Click to expand...


Different link, same content

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

Really, I posted on something similar earlier. There really is no excuse for this. It's naked corruption. Someone had a great suggestion on reddit:

More than that, next time she tries to claim she's worried about money in politics, Bernie can say, "The American people have been speaking very clearly, and they agree that the corrupting power of money in politics needs to stop. Unfortunately the DNC has just repealed restrictions that Barack Obama introduced in 2008 that prevent federal lobbyists from donating to political funds. Madam Secretary, will you stand with me and call for the DNC to reinstate these restrictions?"
Click to expand...
 
Ubik said:
Is that a parody website?

Some other headlines:
"Bernie Sanders Just Delivered His Political Revolution"
"Here Are The Top 10 Quotes By Hillary's Friend and Monster Henry Kissinger"
"There's a Special Place In Hell for Madeleine Albright. Here's Why"
"The DNC Just Screwed Over Bernie Sanders and Spit in Voters' Faces"
Click to expand...

The DNC has not hid its agenda. I'm not giving them a penny though I get calls and emails.
 
Red Dreams said:
The DNC has not hid its agenda. I'm not giving them a penny though I get calls and emails.
Click to expand...

In the words of Colbert: 'You don't bring a spoon to a knife fight'.

Bernie's intentions are noble, but let's face it, without lobbyists and Wall Street money, as well as mega donors, it's very very unlikely the Dems will ever do well down ballot again, and can lose the WH as well.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
In the words of Colbert: 'You don't bring a spoon to a knife fight'.

Bernie's intentions are noble, but let's face it, without lobbyists and Wall Street money, as well as mega donors, it's very very unlikely the Dems will ever do well down ballot again, and can lose the WH as well.
Click to expand...

perhaps that would not be as big a tragedy as one may think.
 
Red Dreams said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...trump-and-sanders_us_56be3c46e4b0b40245c6a159

why Sanders and Trump resonate.
Click to expand...
Is true we need to change, I'm against outsourcing based in more profits. Back in the day I used to write code and when the jobs started flying away I quit my side job, how I could compete when they got paid a penny per line, now my side job is repairing Samsung TVs, laptops and toshiba laptops which is harder when I have my actual job from 7-3. We need change and to tell you the true both parties aren't getting easy, Sanders may pull a surprise, people forget how Obama a black with a Muslim name beat Hillary and Sanders may do the same.
 
barros said:
Offshore outsourcing is the cancer of our times and that's killing the middle classe for decades. That's why I think Sanders and Trump may face each other for the White House.
Click to expand...

Trump has an easier route because he has several rivals and the RNC does not like Cruz.

Sanders is facing the entire DNC establishment and this will be Hillary's last chance. If it is Trump v Sanders, I really think we may get an honest debate. Just a gut feel.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The party of Lincoln, you know.

If I were an American, I'd actually weep. My best friend went to Virginia for his high school and college, lodged with a local family there. The husband is a firefighter, the wife stay at home. Two kids, all round nice people. But when I told them I'm an atheist, they turned visibly disappointed and spent the next hour trying to convert me :lol:. The country has a religious problem, and the GOP is exacerbating it.
Click to expand...


I'm a vegan atheist semi-bearded Indian in North Carolina who is studying (indirectly) evolution for my PhD while getting funded (for now) by the federal government.

:D
:cool:
 
Red Dreams said:
Sanders is having a meeting here in Minneapolis with a large African American crowd and will be taking questions from them. He is making the connection. I'm sure more details will be coming out about his plans.
Click to expand...

Seems that meeting didn't go so well, at least according to CNN.
 
Canuckred64 said:
Seems that meeting didn't go so well, at least according to CNN.
Click to expand...

read the report. He had the guts to go meet a crowd that was not 'pre-preped'. Tough questions as there should have been. But I read those are the failing of the government. And Sanders was right to state that all communities not just blacks have been left behind.
 
Red Dreams said:
read the report. He had the guts to go meet a crowd that was not 'pre-preped'. Tough questions as there should have been. But I read those are the failing of the government. And Sanders was right to state that all communities not just blacks have been left behind.
Click to expand...


I read it too, honestly can't see where he went wrong. He is running on a platform exactly as progressive as hers when it comes to black issues. If repatriations is the demand...I don't know how he's supposed to answer.



Also, this is really impressive considering it's a bunch of volunteers who have come up with it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MZGzbSWESE8t18GGzrgc2FfL0b5tz-vmNf-F_-w5yN4/edit#gid=0
 
Red Dreams said:
read the report. He had the guts to go meet a crowd that was not 'pre-preped'. Tough questions as there should have been. But I read those are the failing of the government. And Sanders was right to state that all communities not just blacks have been left behind.
Click to expand...

berbatrick said:
I read it too, honestly can't see where he went wrong. He is running on a platform exactly as progressive as hers when it comes to black issues. If repatriations is the demand...I don't know how he's supposed to answer.

Also, this is really impressive considering it's a bunch of volunteers who have come up with it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MZGzbSWESE8t18GGzrgc2FfL0b5tz-vmNf-F_-w5yN4/edit#gid=0
Click to expand...

I am not saying Sanders did anything wrong, I thought he answered the question as well as he could especially in a forum that as you say wasn't pre-preped.

However, it is hard to tell when you aren't at the meeting. Millions of people see CNN claiming that Sanders struggled at a meeting with African-American voters and thats whats sticks.
 
Canuckred64 said:
I am not saying Sanders did anything wrong, I thought he answered the question as well as he could especially in a forum that as you say wasn't pre-preped.

However, it is hard to tell when you aren't at the meeting. Millions of people see CNN claiming that Sanders struggled at a meeting with African-American voters and thats whats sticks.
Click to expand...

Meh, the news network have been spinning things in favour of Hillary right since the off, and it's not done all that much for Hillary, it seems.

What's more damning is how the DNC has been approaching this primary, curbing the number of debates, and that Debbie Wasserman Schultz can say shit like this (not without the odd tick, though):



And then there's the recent revelation that they've decided to do away with Obama's ban on federal lobbyist contributions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
 
Last edited:
I hope they don't get rid out the superdelegate system, Labour canned its equivalent over here and ended up with Corbyn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.