2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ubik said:
It'll be contested in name, given that pledged delegates alone can't win it, but she'll be well over the mark when including the already-supportive supers. With the Repubs it was different because there aren't any such supers and it would've all gone down to where previously pledged delegates would've moved on the second ballot and after. With the Dems it'll be sorted after the first ballot, if it gets to that point.
Click to expand...

Don't think the supers will reflect the pledged delegate breakdown, close to 50/50? If not that would be a bit disappointing but not really surprising.

Fair enough on the repubs not having supers but one would still think the dems going into a contested convention would be more of a story.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
I see Warren and Trump have been having a back and forth the last few days.

Wonder if the Dems plan to use her as a means to win over the Sanders voters.

Can't see Hillary picking Warren as a Veep, but perhaps an influential cabinet position could sweeten things.
Click to expand...


Liz is on the right track - challenging Trump on his own domain (Twitter) and using language that challenges Trump's masculinist profile of calling other people weak, losers etc. This may be why she would be more effective as an anti-Trump troll than a VP.
 
Raoul said:
Liz is on the right track - challenging Trump on his own domain (Twitter) and using language that challenges Trump's masculinist profile of calling other people weak, losers etc. This may be why she would be more effective as an anti-Trump troll than a VP.
Click to expand...

Yep. Call him a loser a few times on twitter a few times and he's bound to respond by saying something cheap or sexist which will hurt him with independents.

But it doesn't pay for another candidate to get into the mud with him as Rubio found out. That's why Hillary needs her surrogates to do the dirty work.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Don't think the supers will reflect the pledged delegate breakdown, close to 50/50? If not that would be a bit disappointing but not really surprising.
Click to expand...
It's kind of inconsequential, because if they stay at the current level - she wins. If they vote based on who won their state primary/caucus - she wins. If they vote proportionally along with the rest of the delegates - she wins. They'd have to move heavily to Bernie in order for him to win, and overturn the results of the primaries. To emphasise how unlikely this is - there are 715 superdelegates, and Clinton currently has a ~300 pledged delegate lead. So to overcome that, he'd need to secure about 500 of the 700, or about 70%. But yeah, the reason most people aren't taking the prospect of a contested Democratic convention seriously is because no-one seriously believes it'll be properly contested.
 
JustAFan said:
But that is only if the Super Delegates abandon Hillary?
Click to expand...

Yes, you would think that some would as they are supposed to be party leaders and as such should reflect the people of the party, the percentage of pledged and superdelegates Sanders receives would be about equal if everything were working properly. The superdelegates are unbound even though they have made a verbal commitment one way or the other so they could switch to Sanders but probably won't. Their reasoning will probably have something to do with picking the best candidate for the GE, though I would say it has more to do with many superdelegates having ties with special interests and the fact that Hillary would be the best option for those interests.
 
Not disagreeing with your math @Ubik, but the impression I'm getting from watching news recently is that the Clinton campaign is panicking because they can't fully pivot to Trump, and are getting challenged on 2 fronts.
 
Ubik said:
It's kind of inconsequential, because if they stay at the current level - she wins. If they vote based on who won their state primary/caucus - she wins. If they vote proportionally along with the rest of the delegates - she wins. They'd have to move heavily to Bernie in order for him to win, and overturn the results of the primaries. To emphasise how unlikely this is - there are 715 superdelegates, and Clinton currently has a ~300 pledged delegate lead. So to overcome that, he'd need to secure about 500 of the 700, or about 70%. But yeah, the reason most people aren't taking the prospect of a contested Democratic convention seriously is because no-one seriously believes it'll be properly contested.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is inconsequential from a numbers perspective but as a matter of principle it is important. It shows that a politician whom is not as tied to the establishment and special interests can run a close nomination race and maybe even win in the near future. All good stuff for us.
 
adexkola said:
Not disagreeing with your math @Ubik, but the impression I'm getting from watching news recently is that the Clinton campaign is panicking because they can't fully pivot to Trump, and are getting challenged on 2 fronts.
Click to expand...
I can definitely see that argument, she has to toe a line between focusing attacks on Trump as the presumptive GOP nominee, and still looking like she's approaching the remaining primaries properly, particularly in CA where a big loss (not that that's overly likely, but non-zero) would still damage her delegate lead by enough for it to be embarrassing. I don't think it's panic so much as frustration, which is basically what I was getting at the other week.

Sanders has an unusual campaign in that in previous years, the challenger would have run out of funding already when it became blatant they couldn't win, whereas his funders are legions of true believers that keep on stumping up. It's a sub-optimal position for the party and Clinton to be in, put it that way. In an ideal world, Obama will come out after the final primaries and say it's decided, so there wouldn't be 6 weeks of further speculation about the convention, but they'll probably still think that's too aggressive to Sanders supporters.

It is what it is now, they just have to make the best of it.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Yes, you would think that some would as they are supposed to be party leaders and as such should reflect the people of the party, the percentage of pledged and superdelegates Sanders receives would be about equal if everything were working properly. The superdelegates are unbound even though they have made a verbal commitment one way or the other so they could switch to Sanders but probably won't. Their reasoning will probably have something to do with picking the best candidate for the GE, though I would say it has more to do with many superdelegates having ties with special interests and the fact that Hillary would be the best option for those interests.
Click to expand...

I think the odds are slim to none of a mass movement of super delegates away from Hillary.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Looking more and more like it will be a contested convention. The media were all over that when it was a possibility for the repubs but they haven't said much regarding the possibility in the dem race. Just an observation.

The contested convention comment is assuming the superdelegates end up at about the same proportion between the candidates as the pledged delegates. As of right now Sanders has about 45% pledged and only 7% of superdelegates that have made a commitment, bit of a disparity there but would assume that will change a bit come convention time.
Click to expand...

Red-Jeff said:
I did say they probably wouldn't, just highlighting the symptom of a broken system.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was taking into account your original post on it looking like a contested convention and your assumption there the Super Delegates would move.
 
Raoul said:
Liz is on the right track - challenging Trump on his own domain (Twitter) and using language that challenges Trump's masculinist profile of calling other people weak, losers etc. This may be why she would be more effective as an anti-Trump troll than a VP.
Click to expand...

You can't stump the Trump ;)
 
JustAFan said:
Sorry I was taking into account your original post on it looking like a contested convention and your assumption there the Super Delegates would move.
Click to expand...

I think some will move hence the 'bit of a disparity there but would assume that will change a bit come convention time.' comment. It will change a bit but definitely won't end up as a reflection of the pledged delegates. Point being they could change to better represent the party but likely won't.
 
Raoul said:
No one is dismissing anything - what i'm doing is looking for the correct answers as to why someone who lives in some distant country would be so vested in a particular candidate in a far away place, when they clearly don't live there, don't pay taxes there, and are otherwise not affected by the candidates policy positions. Ravi was the first person in this thread who actually answered correctly, which I respect.
Click to expand...

The only correct answer is if you have a vested financial in the election?

Never were my home islands as featured in the news as they were when the Iraqi invasion was decided there. United States role in the World Wars changed the shape of Europe and the World. How isolationist does one have to be, being an American nonetheless, to not realize the impact of their own country in everyone else's lives.

Also, contrary to most Americans, many Europeans of younger generations see themselves as citizens of the world, and die-hard patriotism is an outdated idea to many. I not only care about what goes in America for the practical reasons cited above, but also get pissed off when some xenophobic leader is elected in Philippines or Hungary. Obviously I don't follow it as closely as in America - the impact is proportionally smaller - but the world is growing ever closer (much due to technology), and general cultural fads and ideals spread so massively that one can only view the world in a global context. That "PR gone mad" thread by Pogue, which sounded particularly American at the beginning, well, I see that in our colleges already, and we don't have the cultural similarities England has to justify that. Point is, the whole world is culturally closer.

Even excluding all international policy or economic questions, there are loads of reasons to feel invested in it. For a believer of Social State like me, for example, it would be a huge thing to see the country which most openly disdains it adhere to it, and it would, even if only by changing prevailing views, certainly protect our own social states from the threats they have. And that's not just because of my political leaning, obviously a libertarian would feel exactly the same.
 
Arruda said:
The only correct answer is if you have a vested financial in the election?

Never were my home islands as featured in the news as they were when the Iraqi invasion was decided there. United States role in the World Wars changed the shape of Europe and the World. How isolationist does one have to be, being an American nonetheless, to not realize the impact of their own country in everyone else's lives.

Also, contrary to most Americans, many Europeans of younger generations see themselves as citizens of the world, and die-hard patriotism is an outdated idea to many. I not only care about what goes in America for the practical reasons cited above, but also get pissed off when some xenophobic leader is elected in Philippines or Hungary. Obviously I don't follow it as closely as in America - the impact is proportionally smaller - but the world is growing ever closer (much due to technology), and general cultural fads and ideals spread so massively that one can only view the world in a global context. That "PR gone mad" thread by Pogue, which sounded particularly American at the beginning, well, I see that in our colleges already, and we don't have the cultural similarities England has to justify that. Point is, the whole world is culturally closer.

Even excluding all international policy or economic questions, there are loads of reasons to feel invested in it. For a believer of Social State like me, for example, it would be a huge thing to see the country which most openly disdains it adhere to it, and it would, even if only by changing prevailing views, certainly protect our own social states from the threats they have. And that's not just because of my political leaning, obviously a libertarian would feel exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Good post. Couldn't agree more.

People do increasingly view themselves as citizens of the world as opposed to just one country. That certainly explains what I was curious about beyond just economic or military reasons. Social norms in Democratic societies are interwoven, which allows for nations (and their citizens) to cooperate based on shared values and interests. Therefore if Drumpf or Cruz were elected in the US, that would obviously place the world's most powerful country in contravention to existing western values.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
We're allowed to care about your poor people too/lots of us have friends in America. Not sure why you find it strange for us to be opinionated on your life chances.
Click to expand...

But why are you so exercised by the plight of the US poor, who, after all, are relatively affluent by world standards? Why don't you show similar concern for the poor in South Africa or Outer Mongolia, whose condition is far more pitiable?

In fairness I think we're interested in America mainly because it's been the cynosure of global culture and politics for more than a century. Humans tend to be interested in what they know.
 
Also not sure she really is ramping the spend up by much


 
Raoul said:
Good post. Couldn't agree more.

People do increasingly view themselves as citizens of the world as opposed to just one country. That certainly explains what I was curious about beyond just economic or military reasons. Social norms in Democratic societies are interwoven, which allows for nations (and their citizens) to cooperate based on shared values and interests. Therefore if Drumpf or Cruz were elected in the US, that would obviously place the world's most powerful country in contravention to existing western values.
Click to expand...

Excellent summing up. Just the other day, I was discussing American elections in the phone with a friend of mine. I was saying I wouldn't mind Trump winning "just for the laugh", and he abhorred my view (and changed it) for the simple possibility of it legitimizing, or giving a platform for xenophobic/hate speakers which are increasingly embarrassed to voice their views, as society evolves. He probably couldn't name an analogous issue in relation to our neighbours Spain elections, for example. Truth is that the US are massive exporters of culture/news, there rarely goes a day that the President of America doesn't show up in our prime-time news, whether for something serious or just a bit of reality-TV sort of crap. Even mildly educated people around here know who Bush, Obama, Clinton or Trump are. That alone magnifies the level of opiniation from outsiders, on top of the more "legitimate" concerns.
 
Ubik said:
I can definitely see that argument, she has to toe a line between focusing attacks on Trump as the presumptive GOP nominee, and still looking like she's approaching the remaining primaries properly, particularly in CA where a big loss (not that that's overly likely, but non-zero) would still damage her delegate lead by enough for it to be embarrassing. I don't think it's panic so much as frustration, which is basically what I was getting at the other week.

Sanders has an unusual campaign in that in previous years, the challenger would have run out of funding already when it became blatant they couldn't win, whereas his funders are legions of true believers that keep on stumping up. It's a sub-optimal position for the party and Clinton to be in, put it that way. In an ideal world, Obama will come out after the final primaries and say it's decided, so there wouldn't be 6 weeks of further speculation about the convention, but they'll probably still think that's too aggressive to Sanders supporters.

It is what it is now, they just have to make the best of it.
Click to expand...


I know. Sanders should run as a third-party option to ensure his message is heard loud and clear.
 
Ubik said:
It's kind of inconsequential, because if they stay at the current level - she wins. If they vote based on who won their state primary/caucus - she wins. If they vote proportionally along with the rest of the delegates - she wins. They'd have to move heavily to Bernie in order for him to win, and overturn the results of the primaries. To emphasise how unlikely this is - there are 715 superdelegates, and Clinton currently has a ~300 pledged delegate lead. So to overcome that, he'd need to secure about 500 of the 700, or about 70%. But yeah, the reason most people aren't taking the prospect of a contested Democratic convention seriously is because no-one seriously believes it'll be properly contested.
Click to expand...

MSNBC was saying her lead is 395 delegates.
Even taking the most optimistic Bernie scenario for how the races will pan out in the remaining states, he'd still need to win by 60 points in California. Under the 'normal scenario' (i.e. she wins NJ, DC, he wins the Northwest by a few points), he'd need to win California by +70 points. It's just not likely
 
Suedesi said:
MSNBC was saying her lead is 395 delegates.
Even taking the most optimistic Bernie scenario for how the races will pan out in the remaining states, he'd still need to win by 60 points in California. Under the 'normal scenario' (i.e. she wins NJ, DC, he wins the Northwest by a few points), he'd need to win California by +70 points. It's just not likely
Click to expand...
280 after last night, not sure where they're getting that from.
 
JustAFan said:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election

NBC has her at 2239 which includes all the Super Delegates pledged to her which means she is only 44 away from locking up the nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/election

CNN the same.
Click to expand...
Green Papers is probably the best to go on as they update the latest figures from caucuses and stuff (Sanders folk tend to squeeze him out a few extra delegates at later state conventions), she's overall at 2,220 there - http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml - Winning mark 2,383. June 7th is the date it becomes mathematically certain.
 
Raoul said:
Good post. Couldn't agree more.

People do increasingly view themselves as citizens of the world as opposed to just one country. That certainly explains what I was curious about beyond just economic or military reasons. Social norms in Democratic societies are interwoven, which allows for nations (and their citizens) to cooperate based on shared values and interests. Therefore if Drumpf or Cruz were elected in the US, that would obviously place the world's most powerful country in contravention to existing western values.
Click to expand...
But that's costing us a leg and an arm to be the worlds cop, the reason most of the countries have social healthcare and free college is because we protect them, let the rest of Europe to pay the bill.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Exit poll in WV shows that a third of Sanders's voters would choose Drumpf over him in the GE :lol:
Click to expand...

Worth pointing out: this is an exit poll of all Democrats


HRCTRUMPWV2update.jpg

sandtrumpwvUPDATE.jpg

It obviously cannot be a third, unless a third of Hillary voters would also choose Trump.
 
berbatrick said:
Worth pointing out: this is an exit poll of all Democrats


HRCTRUMPWV2update.jpg

sandtrumpwvUPDATE.jpg

It obviously cannot be a third, unless a third of Hillary voters would also choose Trump.
Click to expand...

I actually can believe that. Only 24% of WV Dems have a favorable opinion of Obama. They are also mostly DINOs who are registered as Dem but have been voting GOP for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.