2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
you are missing the point. What black voters in the South want is not the issue. Also this specific discussion is about analysis. I'm saying in the GE the Southern black votes will not matter because they will be outvoted by white votes. Hillary will get the black votes all over. But she will not get the Blue color vote that is fed with establishment politicians from both parties. Her path is much narrower in the Rust belt states. That is what these primaries are showing.
Click to expand...
If it's "analysis" you want, based on actual numbers, then how about Hillary after tomorrow having won more delegates even if we only consider states that have voted for Obama. And that's assuming 5 point wins for Bernie in Ohio and Illinois, and only 15 point and 10 point wins in Florida and NC respectively (i.e., 10+ points below the margin she's currently averaging in polls).

And yes, you're basically saying black votes in the south should be ignored.
Red Dreams said:
Err. yes Bernie's enthusiasm is setting primary turnouts where it matters a fact. The Southern states do not matter.
Click to expand...
Where has turnout improved on 2008?
InfiniteBoredom said:
Chatters about Tom Perez, Labour Secretary being touted as Veep
Click to expand...
He's also a fluent spanish speaker, gives him an edge over Castro. (Tim Kaine for that matter is apparently a better spanish speaker than Castro!)
 
Cal? said:
The super delegates going against Hillary despite her winning more pledged delegates? :lol:
Click to expand...

The Super delegates are supposed to try side with the candidate they think has the best chance to win the GE. have explained why I think the southern delegates will not help her.

Rather than go over the same issues that Ubik brought out, I'm saying for the GE black votes in the south will not turn the election in the Dems favor. Hillary is also losing blue color votes. It is highly unlikely the Bernie will be selected against the 'inevitable' candidate the DNC had long decided on.
 
Ubik said:
He's also a fluent spanish speaker, gives him an edge over Castro. (Tim Kaine for that matter is apparently a better spanish speaker than Castro!)
Click to expand...

The sweet spot with Perez is that he has street cred with the progressive wing, whereas Kane can be considered too establishment (being a good friend of Obama makes you one nowadays). Unions actually campaigned against him running to replace Holder as AG to keep him as Labour Secretary.
 
Ubik said:
If it's "analysis" you want, based on actual numbers, then how about Hillary after tomorrow having won more delegates even if we only consider states that have voted for Obama. And that's assuming 5 point wins for Bernie in Ohio and Illinois, and only 15 point and 10 point wins in Florida and NC respectively (i.e., 10+ points below the margin she's currently averaging in polls).

And yes, you're basically saying black votes in the south should be ignored.

Where has turnout improved on 2008?

He's also a fluent spanish speaker, gives him an edge over Castro. (Tim Kaine for that matter is apparently a better spanish speaker than Castro!)
Click to expand...
No he's not saying that. He's saying that those are traditionally states that are won by Republican candidates in general elections.
 
Raoul said:
They are not really that far apart in terms of non-Superdelegates. If Bernie pulls off a couple of unexpected results tomorrow or in the coming weeks, the entire narrative could change and he could wind up pulling ahead, at which point her superdelegates could defect to him.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/
Click to expand...


If it is Trump, I think Bernie has a better shot.(cue all the polls we are seeing now) I think both Bernie and Hillary will do well against the lunatic Cruz. I see no path for the other two.

The problem is a political one for the DNC. Bernie is an outsider.

Personally I see no way the DNC will flip S. delegates to Bernie
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The sweet spot with Perez is that he has street cred with the progressive wing, whereas Kane can be considered too establishment (being a good friend of Obama makes you one nowadays). Unions actually campaigned against him running to replace Holder as AG to keep him as Labour Secretary.
Click to expand...
Interesting, wouldn't be a boost in any particular state but might have more wide-ranging benefits. Still has the drawback of not having held directly elected office though. Then again, Sarah Palin had, so maybe it's not the be all and end all.

Nik70 said:
No he's not saying that. He's saying that those are traditionally states that are won by Republican candidates in general elections.
Click to expand...
With the general point being what?
 
Ubik said:
With the general point being what?
Click to expand...
Errr that he's not saying that 'black votes in the south should be ignored'. You did see the part of your post I highlighted when I replied didn't you?
 
And let's not forget the sections of the US that are STILL most likely to be actively disenfranchised:



So you'll excuse me if I get a little irked when people use careless language.
 
Nik70 said:
Errr that he's not saying that 'black votes in the south should be ignored'. You did see the part of your post I highlighted when I replied didn't you?
Click to expand...

States that Sanders has won: New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Vermont, Maine, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska.

I see two swing states with small count of electoral vote there. Hardly a ringing endorsement of his electability in the general. If we are playing the 'that state is going red so their votes don't matter' game, wouldn't it be better to actually do well in those states to force the GOP to defend it rather than just the blues you can count on?
 
Red Dreams said:
The Super delegates are supposed to try side with the candidate they think has the best chance to win the GE. have explained why I think the southern delegates will not help her.

Rather than go over the same issues that Ubik brought out, I'm saying for the GE black votes in the south will not turn the election in the Dems favor. Hillary is also losing blue color votes. It is highly unlikely the Bernie will be selected against the 'inevitable' candidate the DNC had long decided on.
Click to expand...
8 years ago some people suggested Hillary could steal the nomination from Obama via these super delegates and that was a far fetched idea.

But this time round, the Dem establishment going against her (and Bill) to hand Sanders the nomination in a move that will likely tear up the party?

Just laughable...
 
Raoul said:
They are not really that far apart in terms of non-Superdelegates. If Bernie pulls off a couple of unexpected results tomorrow or in the coming weeks, the entire narrative could change and he could wind up pulling ahead, at which point her superdelegates could defect to him.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/
Click to expand...
Hillary is further ahead right now than Obama was in 2008.

Anyway if Sanders somehow wins the pledged delegates, the supers will defect.
 
Ubik said:
And let's not forget the sections of the US that are STILL most likely to be actively disenfranchised:



So you'll excuse me if I get a little irked when people use careless language.
Click to expand...

Republican cnuts playing the long game...voter suppression.

Think I have at least 10 rants in this thread about this issue. A political party willfully working in a systematic manner to deny citizens the right to vote.
 
slightly crude/crass....but :lol:

D7CpvnCl.png
 
Cal? said:
8 years ago some people suggested Hillary could steal the nomination from Obama via these super delegates and that was a far fetched idea.

But this time round, the Dem establishment going against her (and Bill) to hand Sanders the nomination in a move that will likely tear up the party?

Just laughable...
Click to expand...

Cal. You don't understand. Obama simply had a better chance of winning the election. African American, young people and yes...cross over Republicans were not going to turn up to vote for Hillary.

In this case Sanders has a better chance than Hillary to win the elections. Hillary will not outperform him.in the Rust belt states. NAFTA and she is an establishment candidate running on Obama's coattails. She has no message. Small example. Sanders will win VW handily. Hillary is guranteed to lose that state to a Republican.
 
I don't get why the media is so lenient on Trump. A candidate with a rhetoric as bigoted as his is just begging to be taken down by the news media. They have had numerous opportunities to attack him but he always walks away scott free.
 
Red Dreams said:
how about intentionally misunderstanding the point being made.

give it a rest.
Click to expand...
I was gonna leave it alone before that, but if you insist on prodding me...
Red Dreams said:
@Raoul

about Bernie's momentum. Hillary of course will end up with more delegates. But Bernie has a lot more enthusiastic support. If he keeps closing fast on these and future states, then there will be a narrative. The GOP may not be the only ones with a brokered convention. The Super delegates would not want the nominee to be losing the GE. The polls have shown Bernie doing much better than Hillary against all the GOP candidates.

EDIT:

The fact is Hillary accumulated most of the delegates in Southern states that neither she nor Bernie will win in the GE.
Click to expand...

Red Dreams said:
The Super delegates are supposed to try side with the candidate they think has the best chance to win the GE. have explained why I think the southern delegates will not help her.

Rather than go over the same issues that Ubik brought out, I'm saying for the GE black votes in the south will not turn the election in the Dems favor. Hillary is also losing blue color votes. It is highly unlikely the Bernie will be selected against the 'inevitable' candidate the DNC had long decided on.
Click to expand...

There's a pretty clear logic chain to the bolded statements above.

Hillary gets most of her vote in the south.
Superdelegates are supposed to side with the likelier candidate to win the GE.
Neither Hillary nor Bernie will win the southern states that are responsible for Hillary's delegate lead.
Bernie is likelier to win a GE.
Therefore, superdelegates are supposed to side with Sanders to override a Clinton delegate lead.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
She was my dream candidate -- because I thought Bernie would never run! I knew that he was a socialist and was thus a complete pipe-dream, but I thought Warren would be the realistic choice.
In terms of changing the conversation, she couldn't have matched his impact - he has made socialism (sortof) mainstream again.
Click to expand...

This is America we are talking about. I think being a Fascist has a better political standing than being a socialist(=commie).
 
entropy said:
I don't get why the media is so lenient on Trump. A candidate with a rhetoric as bigoted as his is just begging to be taken down by the news media. They have had numerous opportunities to attack him but he always walks away scott free.
Click to expand...
Ratings >>>>> Journalistic integrity
 
Ubik said:
I was gonna leave it alone before that, but if you insist on prodding me...




There's a pretty clear logic chain to the bolded statements above.

Hillary gets most of her vote in the south.
Superdelegates are supposed to side with the likelier candidate to win the GE.
Neither Hillary nor Bernie will win the southern states that are responsible for Hillary's delegate lead.
Bernie is likelier to win a GE.
Therefore, superdelegates are supposed to side with Sanders to override a Clinton delegate lead.
Click to expand...

I think you have finally Got It. yeeehaaa.

EDIT:


not prodding at all. but you wont believe me.

btw what do you think Hillary will do for the black voter that is either living in poverty or just living hand to mouth. seriously.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Bloody hell, Trump's :D And he wonders where that complaint that he has no actual policies comes from...

"Give me a break"
Click to expand...

I'm quite surprised "many many" "I have a lot of friends" "everybody likes me or thinks i'm a nice/great guy" "I get along with everyone" "everyone says so" "I own many businesses" "Lying Ted" " and "Little Marco" weren't included. He just repeats himself over and over again.

He is getting torn apart by the media now, although I think that's working in his favour at the moment, especially with his supporters, but it seems everyone except Hannity and a couple of "The Five" have turned on him at Fox now.
 
Red Dreams said:
playing into his hands...for now.

the GE will be a different matter. problem is Hillary will also be seen an establishment candidate.
Click to expand...

You couldn't make it up, it's hilarious. Megyn Kelly just did an hour long hit job on Trump on her show, it was actually pretty good to be fair to her, and now Hannity is on moaning about unfair media bias against Trump and blaming every network except his own, obviously didn't watch Megyn's show. Priceless :lol:
 
langster said:
You couldn't make it up, it's hilarious. Megyn Kelly just did an hour long hit job on Trump on her show, it was actually pretty good to be fair to her, and now Hannity is on moaning about unfair media bias against Trump and blaming every network except his own, obviously didn't watch Megyn's show. Priceless :lol:
Click to expand...

playing both sides to keep the audience. As Obama pointed out , the GOP created Trump. Mind you the other two are hardly moderate. Cruz is a T Party loon. balancing the budget on the back of the poor. Oh. And we know he looooves the Muslims right? He feels about them way Trump described it...except he wont say it. He wants to be Presidential!

And Robitobatshit...this guy is supposed to be the most 'moderate'. He'll just gut Social Security. Heck why would you need it when you are dead. And he sounds so sweet talking about Climate change. Climate Always changes....would like to have him tied to a pier when the waves come crashing in.
 
Red Dreams said:
playing both sides to keep the audience. As Obama pointed out , the GOP created Trump. Mind you the other two are hardly moderate. Cruz is a T Party loon. balancing the budget on the back of the poor. Oh. And we know he looooves the Muslims right? He feels about them way Trump described it...except he wont say it. He wants to be Presidential!

And Robitobatshit...this guy is supposed to be the most 'moderate'. He'll just gut Social Security. Heck why would you need it when you are dead. And he sounds so sweet talking about Climate change. Climate Always changes....would like to have him tied to a pier when the waves come crashing in.
Click to expand...

I agree, but what audience? Fox is mainly watched by people wanting to see how batshit it is (like me) or liberal news shows looking for clips to put on youtube to mock. I think the average age of Fox viewers is 68 or 69 and the vast majority is white and it is continually beaten in the ratings by SpongeBob Squarepants. It's a joke of a network. It's like watching Big Brother for me, I don't want to watch it, but I keep going back for more because it's so insane. Car crash political TV.

As for Cruz and Rubio, I agree there too, they are both extremely dangerous and neither would be great Presidents or do anything much for the young, poor, working class, elderly or sick or minorities, and both their stances on foreign policy stink and would be a disaster for the USA and much of the rest of the world. Neither agree with climate change, and both are extremely influenced by their religious beliefs which I hate in politicians.
 
langster said:
You couldn't make it up, it's hilarious. Megyn Kelly just did an hour long hit job on Trump on her show, it was actually pretty good to be fair to her, and now Hannity is on moaning about unfair media bias against Trump and blaming every network except his own, obviously didn't watch Megyn's show. Priceless :lol:
Click to expand...

Ailes is definitely anti-Trump, for different reasons than the rest of the mainstream media are. In Aisles' case, its a matter of power where he thinks Trump should conform to the usual FoxNews umbrella of GOP support, whereas Trump does whatever he wants. I think Hannity and O'Reilly are still on good terms with him though.
 
Raoul said:
Ailes is definitely anti-Trump, for different reasons than the rest of the mainstream media are. In Aisles' case, its a matter of power where he thinks Trump should conform to the usual FoxNews umbrella of GOP support, whereas Trump does whatever he wants. I think Hannity and O'Reilly are still on good terms with him though.
Click to expand...

Ahh, that makes a lot of sense about Ailes and the network's stance, I hadn't really thought about it that way. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.