2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was definitely a very good night for Bernie. GOP race is now as unclear as it's ever been.
 
Sanders humiliated Hillary by 13 points. That should be enough (after this weekend's Wyoming caucus) to steamroll into NY and actually win. If she loses her so called home state, she will be in big trouble.
 
She's never polled lower than 53% in NY. The average is 55% with about 8% undecided.

In 2008 she beat Barry 57-40 there. Unless the debate on the 14th goes horribly wrong, losing 10 points lead in a closed primary isn't feasible.
 
naturalized said:
This part, at least, is provably untrue even from Sanders' own point of view.

Everyone's read this article but here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0



You can run the argument that he started out too positive and only now has become "normal". I would probably even agree with that. Or you can run the argument that it wasn't necessary then but it is necessary now. Or that Americans deserve to know, or whatever. But you can't seriously be watching the campaign without coming to the conclusion that Sanders has become markedly more negative recently. Sanders himself doesn't believe that. He himself initially rejected the arguments he's currently running as being too negative.
Click to expand...

To be honest, that proves that he's exceptionally principled on this point. What the tipping point is, I do not know, but I don't consider him highlighting her business ties as going negative. The notion that money has a corrosive effect when it's allowed so blatantly to infiltrate the political system ties perfectly to this point, but his language has been such that he's not been casting aspersions at her character.

I also think a frame of reference from the other side is valuable. Hillary talks about the 'artful smear', but those have been mainly her area. Two of my favourite examples of her and her campaign doing this are:

-In one of the first debates when Sanders said the people in the discussion about the gun laws need to stop shouting at each other, and Clinton replies that she's not shouting, it's just that when women speak up, some perceive it as shouting. A disgusting attempt at making Sanders seem misogynistic.

-Earlier this year, when the Iowa ads were released, the Bernie ad reflected the racial make-up of the state, meaning there wasn't as many token minorities as an average political ad typically has. David Brock said that it seems like Black Lives don't really Matter to Sanders.

Has Sanders and/or his campaign said anything to rival this?

Him going negative equals being less negative than Hillary, so I find it weird that people consider it sufficient to prove her right on him being negative.

Bernie might have preferred sticking solely to the issues and not making any references to her speaking fees, but it's a bloody political campaign. Most of his supporters are still insisting that he's going easy on Clinton, and if you think back to 08, Hillary and Barack were tearing lumps out of each other by comparison to this campaign.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
She's never polled lower than 53% in NY. The average is 55% with about 8% undecided.

In 2008 she beat Barry 57-40 there. Unless the debate on the 14th goes horribly wrong, losing 10 points lead in a closed primary isn't feasible.
Click to expand...

I think Sanders will cut her lead down and possibly even catch her. In either event, it will be viewed as a loss for her since she started this process 60 points ahead of Sanders in most places and has once again capitulated to an opponent. Even if she gets the nomination, she will cross the finish line limping.
 
Raoul said:
I think Sanders will cut her lead down and possibly even catch her. In either event, it will be viewed as a loss for her since she started this process 60 points ahead of Sanders in most places and has once again capitulated to an opponent. Even if she gets the nomination, she will cross the finish line limping.
Click to expand...
The thing is even if you go back months in NY polls, she's always hovered around that 55-60% benchmark with a lot of undecideds, who eventually all broke to Sanders. Safe to say after months of polling, that's her floor there. I just don't see a path which those hardcore Clinton supporters break for Sanders in 2 weeks, given that they mostly concentrate on the urban areas and have been exposed to the campaign coverage for a long time. Sanders have gone on Sunday talk shows 55 times, only behind Drumpf. If they don't like him already, well..

Re:limping. Once the 5 states on April 26th finish, per 538's demographic projection, she'll have a ~360 delegates lead. You can make the argument that she failed to shrug off Sanders, but to his credits, he built a very robust fundraising operation that allowed him to go on for much longer than what would be the case. In any other year, his campaign would start shredding staffs by now after the March-15 shut out. He won WI last night cleanly, yes, but that's a net 12 delegates gain. A 5 points win in NY yields double that amount. Momentum is overrated a lot in election cycles.
 
Akshay said:
Because he's a Republican not named Trump. That's where I set the bar at, currently.
Click to expand...

Personally I find Cruz scarier. Mainly because I know he believes the shit that he says. Not so sure with Trump.

They're both scary, obviously, but Cruz would take the US down the road of a theocracy in a heartbeat if he could.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
She's never polled lower than 53% in NY. The average is 55% with about 8% undecided.

In 2008 she beat Barry 57-40 there. Unless the debate on the 14th goes horribly wrong, losing 10 points lead in a closed primary isn't feasible.
Click to expand...
Is correct. She'll go on her good run in the next few states, then Bernie will have a run, and people will still insist it's about shifting momentum.
 
Ubik said:
Is correct. She'll go on her good run in the next few states, then Bernie will have a run, and people will still insist it's about shifting momentum.
Click to expand...

Momentum has definitely shifted given Sanders has won six out of seven states over the past couple of weeks. She has to win NY resoundingly to stop him, because anything short of that will be seen as a Sanders victory.
 
Eriku said:
Personally I find Cruz scarier. Mainly because I know he believes the shit that he says. Not so sure with Trump.
Click to expand...
This is true, but I think Trump would do any damned thing if he thinks it would help his electability. And so far being more extremist and stupid have helped his electability tremendously. He's far more comfortable espousing divisive rhetoric than any kind of coherent policy views.

Cruz has strong religious views but apart from Supreme Court nominations its not really that relevant to a President's job. He's far more sane and savvy than Trump on foreign policy.
 
Raoul said:
Sanders humiliated Hillary by 13 points. That should be enough (after this weekend's Wyoming caucus) to steamroll into NY and actually win. If she loses her so called home state, she will be in big trouble.
Click to expand...

Raoul? You starting to feel the Bern?
 
Akshay said:
This is true, but I think Trump would do any damned thing if he thinks it would help his electability. And so far being more extremist and stupid have helped his electability tremendously. He's far more comfortable espousing divisive rhetoric than any kind of coherent policy views.

Cruz has strong religious views but apart from Supreme Court nominations its not really that relevant to a President's job. He's far more sane and savvy than Trump on foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Let's hope we don't live to find out how either of them would do as POTUS.

Edit: that sounds a bit morose... I don't mean for us to up and die before January, just to be clear ;P
 
Akshay said:
Because he's a Republican not named Trump. That's where I set the bar at, currently.
Click to expand...

Who would do the most for the people including the poor and minorities, the environment, and the country and the world would be where I set the bar. It won't matter about kids and grandkids if we all keep electing climate change denying idiots.

RexHamilton said:
Raoul? You starting to feel the Bern?
Click to expand...

He has been on and off for a while now.
 
Last edited:
InfiniteBoredom said:
The thing is even if you go back months in NY polls, she's always hovered around that 55-60% benchmark with a lot of undecideds, who eventually all broke to Sanders. Safe to say after months of polling, that's her floor there. I just don't see a path which those hardcore Clinton supporters break for Sanders in 2 weeks, given that they mostly concentrate on the urban areas and have been exposed to the campaign coverage for a long time. Sanders have gone on Sunday talk shows 55 times, only behind Drumpf. If they don't like him already, well..

Re:limping. Once the 5 states on April 26th finish, per 538's demographic projection, she'll have a ~360 delegates lead. You can make the argument that she failed to shrug off Sanders, but to his credits, he built a very robust fundraising operation that allowed him to go on for much longer than what would be the case. In any other year, his campaign would start shredding staffs by now after the March-15 shut out. He won WI last night cleanly, yes, but that's a net 12 delegates gain. A 5 points win in NY yields double that amount. Momentum is overrated a lot in election cycles.
Click to expand...

She will imo be perceived as limping across the finish line if she fails to resoundingly win NY, if Sanders wins a majority of the outstanding primaries/caucuses, or she fails to reach the necessary delegates needed to nominate without help from superdelegates. If one of the three happens, she will be perceived as very weak. If all three happen, it will be a signal that a Republican can actually beat her in November. I'm not concerned with the NY polls from more than 2 months ago because there wasn't really a viable opponent to juxtapose her against. She was beating Bernie by 48 points three weeks ago in the Emerson poll and is now up by 10-12 based on the more recent CBS and Quinnipiac polls. Given his momentum of having won six out of seven going into NY, he will cut that number down into the single digits or possibly even catch her on the 18th. If that happens, the bottom will fall out from her candidacy, as candidates who can't win their home states are usually toast.
 
Raoul said:
Momentum has definitely shifted given Sanders has won six out of seven states over the past couple of weeks. She has to win NY resoundingly to stop him, because anything short of that will be seen as a Sanders victory.
Click to expand...
Again, you're mistaking momentum for demographically good states. According to the 538 targets, he was slated to win 8/8 of those states (but lost Arizona by 18).

Momentum prediction - Clinton to swing back ahead on the 19th and 26th, Sanders to make a comeback in May, Clinton resurgent in June.
 
Raoul said:
She was beating Bernie by 48 points three weeks ago in the Emerson poll and is now up by 10-12 based on the more recent CBS and Quinnipiac polls. Given his momentum of having won six out of seven going into NY, he will cut that number down into the single digits or possibly even catch her on the 18th. If that happens, the bottom will fall out from her candidacy, as candidates who can't win their home states are usually toast.
Click to expand...


A landline only poll with small sample sizewhich was pretty much the outlier.

We'll see, but I'll frankly be very surprised if she gets less than 55% of the vote. Sanders didn't improve on his numbers among minorities in WI despite the win.
 
Ubik said:
Again, you're mistaking momentum for demographically good states. According to the 538 targets, he was slated to win 8/8 of those states (but lost Arizona by 18).

Momentum prediction - Clinton to swing back ahead on the 19th and 26th, Sanders to make a comeback in May, Clinton resurgent in June.
Click to expand...

The way the states happen to fall on the calendar can't stop the person who wins all of them from gaining momentum, which Sanders has clearly done. She should've put him away a long time ago, but that is clearly not what the voters wanted. She has to prove once again, that she's the better option for the country and from the looks of things, this may continue all the way up to the convention.
 
Akshay said:
I don't agree with how he paints the rebels in Africa there, but he has a point that the US has been far too keen on removing dictators with little success in promoting democracy in the ensuing chaos.
Click to expand...

Yet in the same breath he insists on bombing them back to the Stone Age.

I doubt that the way to defeat ISIS would be to elect an evangelical dominionist theocrat.
 
Akshay said:
I don't agree with how he paints the rebels in Africa there, but he has a point that the US has been far too keen on removing dictators with little success in promoting democracy in the ensuing chaos.
Click to expand...
it sounds like he's saying the right things...but, he's saying them for the wrong reasons.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
A landline only poll with small sample sizewhich was pretty much the outlier.

We'll see, but I'll frankly be very surprised if she gets less than 55% of the vote. Sanders didn't improve on his numbers among minorities in WI despite the win.
Click to expand...

That is what Hillary is banking on in NY. It will be interesting to see how the polls break out once Bernie begins holding massive rallies in various places in NY, as well as the debate on the 14th.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Yet in the same breath he insists on bombing them back to the Stone Age.
Click to expand...
He wants to bomb ISIS troop movements, I don't see the problem with that?

Neutral said:
it sounds like he's saying the right things...but, he's saying them for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...
I assume nearly every politician says things for the wrong reason, which is to fulfill their ambition of being elected.
 
Raoul said:
The way the states happen to fall on the calendar can't stop the person who wins all of them from gaining momentum, which Sanders has clearly done. She should've put him away a long time ago, but that is clearly not what the voters wanted. She has to prove once again, that she's the better option for the country and from the looks of things, this may continue all the way up to the convention.
Click to expand...
Momentum implies shifts in voter behaviour. I haven't seen any evidence of this.
 
langster said:
Who would do the most for the people including the poor and minorities, the environment, and the country and the world would be where I set the bar. It won't matter about kids and grandkids if we all keep electing climate change denying idiots.
Click to expand...
Those are important issues, but I also care about living in a world where I'm free to make more decisions for myself instead of a government bureaucrat making them for me. Say what you want about Cruz, but he's one of the few Republicans that has been staunchly opposed to expanding government largesse throughout, even when it made him unpopular.
 
Akshay said:
He wants to bomb ISIS troop movements, I don't see the problem with that?
Click to expand...

The USA is running out of bombs, they have dropped over 25,000 bomb on ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Bombing is clearly not working, nor is it the answer. You also can't bomb ISIS when they are entrenched in with thousands of civilians which is what Cruz has said he wants to do many times. He's saying what he thinks people want to hear, yet has no feckin clue what he is talking about. On this issue, he is no different to Trump.
 
Akshay said:
Those are important issues, but I also care about living in a world where I'm free to make more decisions for myself instead of a government bureaucrat making them for me. Say what you want about Cruz, but he's one of the few Republicans that has been staunchly opposed to expanding government largesse throughout, even when it made him unpopular.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but we aren't going to have a world if people in power continue to deny climate change and ignore the causes. I also wouldn't trust a word Cruz says. I also think the Republicans often say they want people to think for themselves and are the party of the free, yet by far they are the most controlling party.
 
Akshay said:
He wants to bomb ISIS troop movements, I don't see the problem with that?
Click to expand...

With the same effectiveness as their bombing campaign achieved in VietNam, close to zero.

Waving your dick around to look tough doesn't exactly scream commander-in-chief. Obama's administration decision to pursue that strategy will definitely be one of the black marks of his presidency.
 
Ubik said:
Momentum implies shifts in voter behaviour. I haven't seen any evidence of this.
Click to expand...

That's how it works. Someone goes on a run of states and people's perceptions of that person's viability as a candidate changes, just as it does for the loser.
 
Akshay said:
He wants to bomb ISIS troop movements, I don't see the problem with that?
Click to expand...

Carpet bombing doesn't work when you have fighters who hide among civilians in large cities. This isn't WW2 when formations of troops march in orderly fashion so planes can easily wipe them out.
 
langster said:
I also think the Republicans often say they want people to think for themselves and are the party of the free, yet by far they are the most controlling party.
Click to expand...
That's true, but I often think the same of the Democrat Party. They consider themselves the intellectual party that is pro-people empowerment, but they espouse policies that are often poorly thought-out and take decision making power away from the public. Both parties are far from ideal.

langster said:
The USA is running out of bombs, they have dropped over 25,000 bomb on ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Bombing is clearly not working, nor is it the answer. You also can't bomb ISIS when they are entrenched in with thousands of civilians which is what Cruz has said he wants to do many times. He's saying what he thinks people want to hear, yet has no feckin clue what he is talking about. On this issue, he is no different to Trump.
Click to expand...
InfiniteBoredom said:
With the same effectiveness as their bombing campaign achieved in VietNam, close to zero.
Waving your dick around to look tough doesn't exactly scream commander-in-chief. Obama's administration decision to pursue that strategy will definitely be one of the black marks of his presidency.
Click to expand...
Raoul said:
Carpet bombing doesn't work when you have fighters who hide among civilians in large cities. This isn't WW2 when formations of troops march in orderly fashion so planes can easily wipe them out.
Click to expand...
I want to say that I personally don't like the bombing, neither that carried out by the Obama administration nor that espoused by pretty much every presidential candidate (except for Rand Paul, yay). But in terms of what I'd expect a politician seeking political office, it hardly seems to be a stick worth beating him with. Like I said, pretty much every candidate would support military action against ISIS if asked that question.
 
Akshay said:
Those are important issues, but I also care about living in a world where I'm free to make more decisions for myself instead of a government bureaucrat making them for me. Say what you want about Cruz, but he's one of the few Republicans that has been staunchly opposed to expanding government largesse throughout, even when it made him unpopular.
Click to expand...
Except for when it comes to govt telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body...then again, you're not a woman, so not your problem.
 
Raoul said:
That's how it works. Someone goes on a run of states and people's perceptions of that person's viability as a candidate changes, just as it does for the loser.
Click to expand...
Doesn't tally with Bernie getting beaten hugely in several states, losing 5/5 a few weeks back and then going on his recent winning streak. In fact if you actually look at the race so far, "momentum" has actually been a curse rather than a blessing, since you're likelier to lose a bunch of the following states rather than bowl through them with force. Or it could just be down to demographic differences between states. I go with Occam's Razor for that.
 
Akshay said:
Those are important issues, but I also care about living in a world where I'm free to make more decisions for myself instead of a government bureaucrat making them for me. Say what you want about Cruz, but he's one of the few Republicans that has been staunchly opposed to expanding government largesse throughout, even when it made him unpopular.
Click to expand...

Typical right wing propaganda. Cruz would love to expand government largesse when it means militarily, military industrial complex, police, incarceration, drug war, cultural wars (especially womens' issues), religion based government, borders, spying . . .
 
Ubik said:
Doesn't tally with Bernie getting beaten hugely in several states, losing 5/5 a few weeks back and then going on his recent winning streak. In fact if you actually look at the race so far, "momentum" has actually been a curse rather than a blessing, since you're likelier to lose a bunch of the following states rather than bowl through them with force. Or it could just be down to demographic differences between states. I go with Occam's Razor for that.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why he is doing better, because Hillary made a massive error in attempting to pivot away to Trump while Bernie continued campaigning hard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.