2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ubik said:
Genuinely absurd that after over 400,000 votes cast, the difference between the two is a few more than 200 votes :lol:
Click to expand...
It's crazy :lol:
The numbers are so tight, and the Guardian tracker uses 2 shades of blue so I didn't even realise he'd taken the lead for a bit :lol:

He's looking like he could finish strongly, 1,000 votes ahead now. If he loses now it'll be like the own goal tonight, not that important but still frustrating :lol:
 
Raoul said:
Pretty embarrassing for Hillary since she crushed Obama in KY 8 years ago.
Click to expand...
That's because she had the working class white vote nailed down. Support bases have shifted since, particularly in coal country.
 
@InfiniteBoredom

Today's vote also addresses the point I made about Hillary's claim of "2 million votes ahead"

I'd said the reason is that Sanders' strength in caucus states mean much of his delegate lead is not reflected in raw votes. You said that is imaterial. Today's numbers sum it up.
KY is deep red, and had a caucus where Trump won with 82k votes to Cruz's 72k (Rubio+Kasich = 70k; total = 225k)
Today Bernie and Clinton each have 190k votes in a closed primary in fecking Kentucky. (total=~400k).

Given that delegates are roughly proportional (assuming that the complication of county delegates in some states and NV-like events cancel out for both), I think it's fair to say that their actual "support" has been in the ratio 1716:1433, which (excluding MoM, etc.) comes to 45.5% and 54.5% respectively and not the blowout the raw numbers suggest.


EDIT: she will win. all remaining votes are in Jefferson county which is 50-38 Clinton.
 
Louisville comes in, gives Clinton a big edge of 2.5k. Still one county with 25 precincts that hasn't declared anything after the early vote, highly doubt it'll get him that many but you never know.
 
Bernie crosses out "won", scribbles in "statistically tied".
 
Some of the paranoia on Twitter from the Bernie bros annoys even me.

Closeness of this is really showing her weakness as a candidate in my opinion.
 
Raoul said:
They will still get about the same amount of delegates out of it. And besides, this is a really atrocious showing from Hillary given how she did last time.
Click to expand...

It points to her difficulties in that coal region. But she has inherited a lot of Obama's base (minorities) and ceded some of her own (Bernie also took Obama's youth base) so it isn't unexpected that her performances are inverted.
 
No one really should give a shit. Delegates split. Clinton is the nominee. KY will be going red in November.
 
Thankfully on the Sanders subreddit today, there are a LOT of robust responses to Trump trolls and also relatively civilised Trump supporters. Last 2-3 days had been hell. I get that some people are Bernie-or-bust. But if your choice is Sanders over Hillary, why on earth would you choose Trump over Hillary when you can actually vote for Jill Stein.
 
berbatrick said:
Thankfully on the Sanders subreddit today, there are a LOT of robust responses to Trump trolls and also relatively civilised Trump supporters. Last 2-3 days had been hell. I get that some people are Bernie-or-bust. But if your choice is Sanders over Hillary, why on earth would you choose Trump over Hillary when you can actually vote for Jill Stein.
Click to expand...

Jill Stein was given a less than robust welcome in Twitter AMA this week, wasn't she?
 
berbatrick said:
I don't think anyone expects him to win the actual election by this kind of blowout (these numbers would probably be 350-400 in the electoral college).
It's the trendlines that are worrying - Trump has been trending up against her to the point of drawing even (+10->+3)while Bernie's downward trend has been less pronounced (+15->+10)*. In isolation her fall could be explained as the bump from Trump getting the nomination and GOP consolidation but the fact that Bernie's numbers haven't fallen correspondingly mean there's more to it.
Which brings us to his support (and her weakness) among independent voters. Infi.Boredom have argued circularly and endlessly about this but this is what I believe:

1. Many of her base voters (minorities) will vote Dem regardless of the nominee, the spectre of Trump should be enough to motivate the entire traditional Dem base (especially women)
2. On the other hand his base (youth) might be de-motivated without him, too anti-Hillary or too progressive (read: Jill Stein) which could cost her
3. Independent voters have, throughout every poll, and every open primary (even in Georgia!), shown a marked love for Sanders and dislike of Clinton.

Against this you have the fear-mongering capacity of the entire rightwing/Fox machine (tax!) which will absolutely affect him, but you also have public support for his policies (example - new poll: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/poll-health-care-bernie-sanders-223206). Note that Obamacare, which Hillary is wedded to and is expected to rise in costs right around November, is less popular than simply scrapping it and both are less popular than single-payer.

Basically I am doubtful whether the fear-mongering can damage him enough among independents to change a double-digit lead to a loss while a lead of 4 is super-vulnerable, based on the economy.


*RCP hasn't updated with yesterday's/today's polls, it has the numbers as +13 and +5.7.
Click to expand...

Independent voters won't be deciding between Clinton and Sanders though. They'll be deciding between Clinton and Trump. They will break to Clinton far more than they will to Trump. As for the young voters and anti-Hillary liberals, a Trump presidency should be enough to motivate both of them to vote for Clinton. I realize most of them aren't interested in practicalities since their candidate would be able to accomplish virtually none of his major platform planks, but young voters/#NeverClinton voters should probably realize that protest votes in this election would be meaningless or harmful.

As for his policies being supported, the vast majority of Americans like the parts of Obamacare but they don't like the whole because it's been drummed into them that it's evil. The same goes for background checks for guns and gun control. The general public is depressingly uninformed or misinformed about various policies and their implications. They support numerous things that they routinely vote against. The actual costs involved in Sanders plans, which again won't be implemented because Congress, and other ramifications are much more complex than telling everyone they'll get free healthcare, free college, all the tax burden increase will be on the wealthy, etc. Obamacare is a compromise between what we had before its implementation and universal healthcare, which is virtually impossible to implement. Costs associated with Obamacare will go up, but they go up at a substantially reduced rate from what they were prior to its existence.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Yea I saw a lot of posters were turned off by her homeopathy answer, especially after her moral high ground on principles. I personally thought her answer has bordering on ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, she shares her views with the heir to the Queen. :lol:
 
Nobby style said:
We fund an endlessly failing multi billion dollar drug war and fund the greatest incarceration rate the world has ever seen that´s destroyed minority communities and corrupted our Latino allies and their flimsy democracies . . . well, that´s retarded.
Click to expand...

So because they are a minority let them walk free even if they committed a crime?
 
berbatrick said:
@InfiniteBoredom

Today's vote also addresses the point I made about Hillary's claim of "2 million votes ahead"

I'd said the reason is that Sanders' strength in caucus states mean much of his delegate lead is not reflected in raw votes. You said that is imaterial. Today's numbers sum it up.
KY is deep red, and had a caucus where Trump won with 82k votes to Cruz's 72k (Rubio+Kasich = 70k; total = 225k)
Today Bernie and Clinton each have 190k votes in a closed primary in fecking Kentucky. (total=~400k).

Given that delegates are roughly proportional (assuming that the complication of county delegates in some states and NV-like events cancel out for both), I think it's fair to say that their actual "support" has been in the ratio 1716:1433, which (excluding MoM, etc.) comes to 45.5% and 54.5% respectively and not the blowout the raw numbers suggest.


EDIT: she will win. all remaining votes are in Jefferson county which is 50-38 Clinton.
Click to expand...

Clinton won the primary in Nebraska and came much closer in Washington. Both states held caucuses that Sanders crushed.

Would the raw votes number be different? Yes, but would it substantially change the margin? Doubtful. And the results will most likely favor Clinton rather than Sanders. That's why it's immaterial.

I can even flip your argument and say that Sanders has a great chance, even absolute certainty of winning KY today had it been a caucus instead, which will actually help him reduce the votes number deficit.

And back to favourability, between January and November 2000, Dubya's dropped 27 points. You can make an argument that it won't ultimately be enough if it's Sanders vs Trump, but what can't be disputed is going negative works. You may have more hope about the American electorate than I do, but I wouldn't chance it on the ones that bought into 'swift boat'.
 
I honestly don't see why those primaries have any value whatsoever. AFAIK the Bernie campaign is doing absolutely nothing about them, and older voters are indeed the most reliable voters -- so it naturally favours Clinton.
That said, yes, caucuses themselves favour Bernie. Yes. Without looking seriously at numbers it's hard to tell what the exact impact is, but I stand by my 45-55 figure. Local effects should cancel out overall.
 
A more diligent man would crunch the population numbers on states that held caucuses vs primaries so we can finally reach a conclusion but that ain't me :D

Anyhow, I'm just enjoying the Trumpvaganza on offer. It'll be fun. Kudos to you for actually engaging the Trumpkins and Bernie-or-busts :cool:
 
Grinner said:
Why is this Kelly Trump interview on primetime?
Click to expand...
Because people half expect Trump to say something like I'm going to waterboard you when I'm president if you ever bring your bleeding clunge within 100 miles of me.
That's why people tune in... That's why they can sell adverts at a premium
And that's why he is (despite some of the polling) going to be able to put up a strong fight in the election... He will dominate the news cycle and agenda
 
berbatrick said:
@InfiniteBoredom

Today's vote also addresses the point I made about Hillary's claim of "2 million votes ahead"

I'd said the reason is that Sanders' strength in caucus states mean much of his delegate lead is not reflected in raw votes. You said that is imaterial. Today's numbers sum it up.
KY is deep red, and had a caucus where Trump won with 82k votes to Cruz's 72k (Rubio+Kasich = 70k; total = 225k)
Today Bernie and Clinton each have 190k votes in a closed primary in fecking Kentucky. (total=~400k).

Given that delegates are roughly proportional (assuming that the complication of county delegates in some states and NV-like events cancel out for both), I think it's fair to say that their actual "support" has been in the ratio 1716:1433, which (excluding MoM, etc.) comes to 45.5% and 54.5% respectively and not the blowout the raw numbers suggest.


EDIT: she will win. all remaining votes are in Jefferson county which is 50-38 Clinton.
Click to expand...
3 million ;)
 
berbatrick said:
@InfiniteBoredom

Today's vote also addresses the point I made about Hillary's claim of "2 million votes ahead"

I'd said the reason is that Sanders' strength in caucus states mean much of his delegate lead is not reflected in raw votes. You said that is imaterial. Today's numbers sum it up.
KY is deep red, and had a caucus where Trump won with 82k votes to Cruz's 72k (Rubio+Kasich = 70k; total = 225k)
Today Bernie and Clinton each have 190k votes in a closed primary in fecking Kentucky. (total=~400k).

Given that delegates are roughly proportional (assuming that the complication of county delegates in some states and NV-like events cancel out for both), I think it's fair to say that their actual "support" has been in the ratio 1716:1433, which (excluding MoM, etc.) comes to 45.5% and 54.5% respectively and not the blowout the raw numbers suggest.


EDIT: she will win. all remaining votes are in Jefferson county which is 50-38 Clinton.
Click to expand...


Has anybody tallied the actual votes each has gotten nationwide so far?
 
I continue to interpret this as a major warning sign as to Hillary's prospects going forward. She has basically used a pretty corrupt process of super delegates to help herself to a 400 delegate lead before a single vote was cast by any member of the general public, using a cabal of Clinton acolytes to get it done. And yet despite, this she is still getting clobbered in states she should be winning overwhelmingly given the supposed inevitability of her nomination. That's a massive warning sign for the Dems going forward.
 
Raoul said:
I continue to interpret this as a major warning sign as to Hillary's prospects going forward. She has basically used a pretty corrupt process of super delegates to help herself to a 400 delegate lead before a single vote was cast by any member of the general public, using a cabal of Clinton acolytes to get it done. And yet despite, this she is still getting clobbered in states she should be winning overwhelmingly given the supposed inevitability of her nomination. That's a massive warning sign for the Dens going forward.
Click to expand...
I think looking preferable to Trump will be a lot simpler than looking preferable to Bernie.

My hope is that pretty quickly she'll be seen a much more favorable light, when the choice starts to sink in.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I think looking preferable to Trump will be a lot simpler than looking preferable to Bernie.

My hope is that pretty quickly she'll be seen a much more favorable light, when the choice starts to sink in.
Click to expand...

She seems to be running a traditional campaign that people are accustomed to in previous cycles, whereas the likes of Bernie and Trump are running asymmetrically through social media, populism etc. If I'm the Trump campaign, I'm licking my chops at facing her provided Trump himself can get the media off his back with the daily tabloid inquiries.
 
Raoul said:
And yet despite, this she is still getting clobbered in states she should be winning overwhelmingly given the supposed inevitability of her nomination. That's a massive warning sign for the Dems going forward.
Click to expand...

Except this is not how people act. 200k people turned out to vote for Drumpf in OR despite him already clinching the nomination and even told his supporters in states yet to vote to 'forget about the primary, save your vote for the general'.

Demography and economy are what decide elections, not trumped up media narrative. You are entitled to your own analysis, nevertheless.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Except this is not how people act. 200k people turned out to vote for Drumpf in KY despite him already clinching the nomination and even told his supporters in states yet to vote to 'forget about the primary, save your vote for the general'.

Demography and economy are what decide elections, not trumped up media narrative. You are entitled to your own analysis, nevertheless.
Click to expand...

She is lucky that she is facing Trump, who is obviously not the best candidate for Republicans. If i were a Hillary supporter, I would be looking for a bit of momentum going into the convention. Instead, she is massively underperforming against a fringe candidate who began the primary process in single digits. What I would expect from a candidate who is steaming towards a nomination, would be for them to basically win every late primary convincingly, as opposed to Hillary's poor performances in KY and OR and on the back of WV and IN, many of which are closed which means she should be smoking Bernie in the 65-35% range.
 
Raoul said:
She is lucky that she is facing Trump, who is obviously not the best candidate for Republicans. If i were a Hillary supporter, I would be looking for a bit of momentum going into the convention. Instead, she is massively underperforming against a fringe candidate who began the primary process in single digits. What I would expect from a candidate who is steaming towards a nomination, would be for them to basically win every late primary convincingly, as opposed to Hillary's poor performances in KY and OR and on the back of WV and IN, many of which are closed which means she should be smoking Bernie in the 65-35% range.
Click to expand...
That was never on the cards. The race has been static from start to finish and voter groups have been stubborn with their allegiances. Basically a re-run of 2008 with the loyalties shifted around, leaving Clinton with a more effective coalition than Obama's over her. Momentum is a duff concept in this primary.
 
This is the 2008 primary results map

1280px-Democratic_presidential_primary%2C_2008.svg.png


Sanders is basically Obama minus the South. And primary voters aren't usually deterred by maths. Hillary won 8/10 of the last 08 primaries even when it was fairly certain she couldn't catch up.

One thing we also need to keep in mind regarding KY, WV or any another coal state is that they are hit especially hard by Obama's energy policies. Why should they vote for Clinton when she's running as Barry's 3rd term? Of course, the irony is that Sanders's positions are even more liberal, but they don't know or care about that.

There's always a place for liberal panic, I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.