Sanders wins Wyoming by 12 and loses delegate count. It really is nonsense. I'm still confused by Colorado. Did the people even vote or was it just delegates?
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
They tied the delegate count. Superdelegates are an aside.
Colorado on the GOP side had a preference vote a month or so back when Rubio was still running, but they'd already decided not to bind the delegates to the results prior to that. Not sure how the delegates have now been awarded.
@ThierryHenry
Relating to your earlier question, might have a gander at this - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/u...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
Not sure whether he's deliberately running or just becoming a visible face that the GOP can stomach for the campaign, countering the sheer bellendery of Trump and Cruz, but I think there's a decent chance his odds may improve. May have a go myself.
Relating to your earlier question, might have a gander at this - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/u...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
Not sure whether he's deliberately running or just becoming a visible face that the GOP can stomach for the campaign, countering the sheer bellendery of Trump and Cruz, but I think there's a decent chance his odds may improve. May have a go myself.
I've been saying that for ages and the last 10 or 15 pages was full of Bernie's folks acting hurt that I'm being dismissive of his chance, because 'momentum'. Clinton actually took time off NY to campaign in Maryland yesterday. I expect her to hit 60.
I think you should find out if there's an option to bet on whether his name was put on a ballot in the convention. Personally I'm not convinced because there's even a 'Saving Paul Ryan' project going on now by Kochs groups to protect his Speakership. There are 49 House seats potentially at play according to CPR and 32 of them GOP's.
Edit: TIL.
Last edited:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
It's meaningless but it would be good to see Harry Enten eat his hat (just wait for the Pew to go)
It's meaningless but it would be good to see Harry Enten eat his hat (just wait for the Pew to go)
That's my point. He wins by 12% and these 4 superdelegates decide he's not good enough for them. It is becoming ridiculous. He lost in total delegates 11 to 7. It is not what the people of Wyoming wanted.
Superdelegates can vote how they will, that's the whole point. Their role is to direct the electorate towards the more viable general election candidate. If they are tied to the popular vote count then they wouldn't exist in the first place.
So why voting for a candidate in first place?
There's no point arguing this. He has already said that all that matters is outcome.
I wouldn't mind if the whole process was party-driven, my problem is with the sham of popular choice.
He's losing the overall popular vote by a large margin. The majority of democratic voters want Clinton so far and it is being reflected in the delegate and super delegate leads so far.
What's the sham then?
If Hillary ends up with the most pledged delegates, of course she should be the nominee, no matter the polls.
The reason Bernie is running is to put pressure on her to adopt some of his policies.
She does not have any obligation to of course. But then she will risk losing the GE.
The reason Bernie is running is to put pressure on her to adopt some of his policies.
She does not have any obligation to of course. But then she will risk losing the GE.
Like Maher was saying, the repubs secretly want her to win so they can have four years of attacking her and doing feck all for the country.
The Repubs may just want her to win cause they can cut the deals with her. She is in effect a moderate Republican. Progressive my arse.
Do you see them cutting deals with Trump or God forbid Bernie?
The illusion of democracy.
The elders of both parties used to choose the nominees. Letting voters choose the nominee is a relatively modern phenomenon.
All this crying about superdelegates is quite ironic given that Tad Devine was one of the creators of that system.
Only 2 candidates would have some support from the congress:
Bernie - GOP wouldn't support and some Democrats wouldn't support him as well
Cruz - Would have GOP support and very few Democrats on some issues
Clinton - Would have support from the Democrat side and some GOP's on most issues.
Trump - No support at all from the Democratic and GOP side
Interesting elections, people on both parties are sick and tired of the so called establishments which they are on the payroll of the big corporations. This elections could be the start of a new Republican party.
With Bernie, think he would the Democrat support. Not sure about the GOP because although his polices would appeal across board, the politicians would not work with him.
Cruz. No Democrat would support him and even some Republicans would not support.
Clinton- Democrats yes. and some GOP on Finance friendly issues...if you know what I mean.
Trump. he may well end up with Democrat support and some GOP support as well on issues like raising taxes, Health care, Social security.
I bolded that. 100% agree. trump said as much. This is why I think a Trump Presidency will actually bring both parties closer to the middle...after you get rid of his crazy rants.
Correct. He would not only receive zero Republican support but probably only a fraction of Democratic support, since many of his policies are too far in left field of the Democratic platform. Agreed on Trump, Clinton, and Cruz as well.
I do wonder if the dems will work with a repub given the last 8 years. I'd normally say be the bigger person but feck me the repubs have made it hard to act like adults if the dems become the opposition.
You're conflating the two though, superdelegates don't have to make their choice based on the caucus result, they endorse the candidate who they think will be the better nominee. They're also unpledged, so can change their vote at any time between now and the final vote at the convention.
Take another point - what is Sanders' real commitment to the Democratic party, given he's only been a member since November 2015? Does he believe in party building in the way that Clinton does? If so, why has she raised $15m dollars for downballot Democrats so far this quarter, whilst he's raised zero? This may seem like a trivial point to a lot of people, but the members of the DNC and members of congress are party people, they want the Democrats to succeed as a whole. It's no coincidence that registered Democrats almost always break comfortably to Clinton, either.
I really doubt Cruz would get unified support from the GOP. More likely the TP (House Freedom Caucus) and and the deep red Senate seats. The blue and purple states representatives and Senators will have to choose what they can support him on if they don't want to lose reelection.
They will get behind him in an election year, but when it comes to the mundane daily governance, he remains extremely loathsome to them.
They will get behind him in an election year, but when it comes to the mundane daily governance, he remains extremely loathsome to them.
Be sort of funny to see Trump elected and then having meltdowns when he finds out being President is not the same as being Dictator and the military keeps refusing his orders to bomb Congress, the Supreme Court, his ex-wives, Mexico, and anyone with hands bigger than his.
Good point.
Arnie had the same realisation in CA as governor. But he had the sense to back down and compromise. I don't think DT can do that.
Did anybody watch the Obama Fox interview yesterday? I couldn't be arsed...did anything interesting come out?
Clinton in his opinion won't be indicted, didn't endanger national security (flew over Wallace's head though, Barry got quite impatient at the end of the exchange)
Warned against partisanship, saying that compromising is not selling out.
Won't withdraw Garland in the lame duck session.
I guess I need to watch Hannity tonight then to get the real meaning behind Obama's words.
I might be missing something, but doesn't this give the Republicans no incentive at all to bend?
They can try their luck now, and if it doesn't work out it's still going to be Garland, so what's the point?
It reflects quite badly on them as obstructionist dicks. Obama showing that he won't ruin a good man and the court over politics.
I think it's a very savvy move. The GOP either bends now to salvage what goodwill they can for saving the endangered Senate seats (Kirk, Ayotte) or doubled down while Obama's approval rating keep rising.
that makes no sense.
A democratic President getting little support form Democrats who need the same people voting for them.
Maybe, and I'm sure you're right that this helps Obama be the adult in the room. Just seems to me that if there's a prize worth going to the mat for, it's SCOTUS, though. As Trump would put it - you need leverage. Obama's already met them halfway, after all.
But Garland is a good nominee. Putting a dem Scalia nomination forward is tempting but not what needs to be done. I think he's calculating that HRC can do that over the next 8 years.
Are they directing? Sounds to me like they are dictating. Wyoming case in point.
Overall, the next president gets to fill at least 2 positions and this replacing of Scalia with a centrist judge is pretty good and makes it worthwhile IMO
Because even the democrats see him as a socialist not a democrat.
Kennedy is old, once Hillary has sworn in, Ginsberg will retire and she can choose someone young to replace her (Barry for the trolling would be great). Breyer might be persuaded too, although I'm not sure he would be ok with it. Both Sotomayor and Kagan are young enough.
Whatever happens, as long as there's a Dem in the WH the next 8 years, there will be a very liberal SCOTUS, the most in generations.
Last edited:
They are a firewall, theoretically, against someone like Trump. Nevertheless, they've never gone against the pledged delegates count since their inception.
It's a really non-issue. Just a losing campaign being salty about it. Actually, if they award supers based on the states they've won respectively, Sanders would fare even worse against Clinton and will mathematically be out of the race by April 26.
Obama as a pick would be excellent. He'd be an amazing justice too. I do wonder what he's going to do since he's a relatively young man. I hope he doesn't just cash in but I doubt he will.
If he becomes President he would have got Democrat votes. That is what I am saying.
btw this Socialist schtick means nothing these days.
He would be the perfect Judge and would not be hampered about having to compromise as did when he was President.
He would do what is right.
As much as I admire the man, I think former Presidents carry too much weight to do much else besides non-profit work. He'd be too much of a "star" on the Supreme Court.
- Status