Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Bernie is winning the nomination race and here's whyFollow

#327 Apr 14 2016 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In seven out of eight most recent polls, Clinton is getting above 50% support (in the 8th, she's at 50% exactly). I don't know what kind of new math they teach where you live but 50%+ support doesn't leave room for undecided voters to swing the scales for a win.

And that is, of course, based on the impossible notion that undecideds would break 100% for one candidate.

Interestingly, Sanders is losing NY Jewish voters to Clinton by 22pts. They make up nearly 20% of the NYC electorate per 2013 mayoral election results.

Edited, Apr 14th 2016 8:50am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#328 Apr 14 2016 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In seven out of eight most recent polls, Clinton is getting above 50% support (in the 8th, she's at 50% exactly). I don't know what kind of new math they teach where you live but 50%+ support doesn't leave room for undecided voters to swing the scales for a win.

And that is, of course, based on the impossible notion that undecideds would break 100% for one candidate.

Interestingly, Sanders is losing NY Jewish voters to Clinton by 22pts. They make up nearly 20% of the NYC electorate per 2013 mayoral election results.

Edited, Apr 14th 2016 8:50am by Jophiel


Clearly the Jews support the corrupt financial firms they secretly run.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#329 Apr 14 2016 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
They, no doubt, put something in the bagels.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#330 Apr 14 2016 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In seven out of eight most recent polls, Clinton is getting above 50% support (in the 8th, she's at 50% exactly). I don't know what kind of new math they teach where you live but 50%+ support doesn't leave room for undecided voters to swing the scales for a win.
Have to wait for all the Republicans to show up and vote for Bernie to keep the Democrats infighting!

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#331 Apr 14 2016 at 2:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Lefein wrote:
Man, I cannot wait for this debate tonight! There are enough undecided voters in New York according to the polls to fill the gap between Bernie and Hillary. This is going to be an exciting day!


I know that you are semi-trolling, but a debate on policy doesn't favor Sen. Senators. He will only come out on top if she flubs and/or get grilled by the commentators. That's why he was pushing for a weekend debate, which is ironic because the weekend debates was said to support Sec. Clinton.
#332 Apr 14 2016 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If Trump fails to win enough pledged delegates, then losing the nomination is exactly what *should* happen, because his pledged count isn't the result of broad popular appeal among the party voters.
If Trump fails to win enough pledged delegates, then losing the nomination is exactly what should happen to everyone because their pledged counts are even more abysmal (some far more so) than Trump's.


You completely missed the point I was making. Let me make it again:

Quote:
because his pledged count isn't the result of broad popular appeal among the party voters


Quote:
You want to argue that Trump shouldn't get the nomination because he failed to meet a certain benchmark...


No. I even put a whole clause in the sentence you quoted that followed the word "because". Here. Let me quote it again:

Quote:
because his pledged count isn't the result of broad popular appeal among the party voters


Quote:
...then you also have to make the argument for everyone else as well.


The other candidates, many of whom have relative popular support in the party that is actually much higher than their relative pledged delegate count. My whole point revolved around the fact that pledged delegate support is *not* the same as broad appeal within the party. In the case of Trump, he's been running a campaign specifically designed to reach that majority pledged number prior to the convention, and thus not need to have majority popular appeal in the party as a whole. He's taking advantage of the "rules" of delegate pledging to make a run at the nomination in a party where his negatives are so high, he'd never be able to win if it were just up to the voters themselves. He relies on delegate math to win. But if he fails with that math, and it comes down to later rounds of voting, where the delegates are no longer forced to vote based on the "rules", he loses. Big.

Other candidates do not have this problem. It's pretty unique to Trump. So no. I do not have to make the same argument for everyone else, because Trump is the only candidate who falls into this category.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#333 Apr 14 2016 at 4:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It only makes sense because facts don't affect Trump voters.

It make sense that he'd use the argument. I'm not saying that he has a good case.


He'd have a good case if his primary opposition was someone like Jeb, or maybe Rubio. But it's Cruz. Hardly the guy the establishment would "rig" the game to help out. So even the whole "establishment is out to get me" bit comes off a bit weak, because that's also kinda Cruz' line too. Cruz was just smarter about his ground game. Trump went into the primary season with a plan involving taking advantage of a divided field, and using mass market tactics to get enough votes to win pluralities in early states, garner that into more votes in later states, and sail into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates. It's clear he spent zero time actually building a ground game, or making contacts with the local state party folks to help him out. His plan specifically kinda bypassed them as unimportant parts of the puzzle.

And he'll be correct. *If* he wins a majority of pledged delegates. But if not, his lack of attention to the state parties, and the lack of building organizations on the ground in each state, will mean that he wont have adequate representation in latter ballot rounds at the convention. That's not "unfair". Those are the rules. He just chose to focus on the part of the rules that benefited him and is ignoring the part that may hurt him if he fails. He could have spent the same time and effort in each state that Cruz has spent. Maybe fewer big media events and more handshaking and baby kissing would have helped him there. But he made the choice of how to run his campaign, and he kinda has to live with that choice.


That's not to say that the establishment *isn't* out to get him. But he's certainly made it super easy by his own choices. "They" don't have to do anything nefarious at all. If the state delegations were literally just made up of a random selection of GOP voters in each state, Trump would still have zero chance of winning later round voting at the convention. No one has to "rig" the game here. Cruz is certainly trying to win support among the delegations for himself, but he didn't have to spend any effort to erode support for Trump. Trump does that all by himself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#334 Apr 14 2016 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump will certainly have more delegates than anyone else going into the convention. The remaining large states all favor him (NY, PA, MD, NJ, CA), possibly with over 50%. He'll lose states like North Dakota but that's not going to let Cruz overtake him.

He may be shy of a majority. He may be able to swing enough unpledged to make up the difference. His supporters absolutely won't be satisfied with "rules are rules" if the nomination goes to someone with a fraction of his pledged delegates and votes. There, the GOP finds itself stuck in the position of nuance being harder to explain than bumper sticker slogans. They have my empathy, if not my sympathy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#335 Apr 14 2016 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Trump will certainly have more delegates than anyone else going into the convention.


Pledged delegates. My point is that due to the top heavy method of distributing pledged delegates, he has won a percentage of pledged delegates that is well out of proportion to his actual popular support in the party. His shot at winning is based on the rules that allow for this. He really can't complain if he fails to get a majority going into the convention and those pledged delegates are freed up to vote as they actually wish rather than as the rules force them to, and the result is more in keeping with his actual popular support in the GOP.

Quote:
His supporters absolutely won't be satisfied with "rules are rules" if the nomination goes to someone with a fraction of his pledged delegates and votes. There, the GOP finds itself stuck in the position of nuance being harder to explain than bumper sticker slogans. They have my empathy, if not my sympathy.


Sure. But supporters of a candidate are rarely satisfied when their candidate doesn't win, regardless of how it happens. And, yeah, I get the bumper sticker aspect of this, but the fact is that pledged delegate count is actually the "rigged" part of the nomination process (ie: He's the one taking advantage of the "rules"). If there were some magical way to allow every single GOP primary voter in the country to vote directly in each round in the convention, does anyone think that Trump would have a chance to win? Well, more than a snowball's chance anyway? No. He wouldn't. So it's not "unfair" that he can't win if it comes down to open voting of the delegates (which are presumed to represent the voters, right?), since he wouldn't win if the voters were there directly.

It is, in fact, completely fair. Doesn't mean that they wont complain about it anyway, but those complaints are (or should be) pretty weak. You can't whine about the rules that don't benefit you when you've been taking advantage of other rules that do all along. Well, you can, but you look pretty foolish doing it.


Heck. Even I thought to ask about how the actual delegates are chosen (not pledged, but who physically occupies the seat in the delegation). And I'm not professionally involved in any political campaigns. You'd think someone in the Trump campaign would have thought about this, and maybe thought about looking into that process and what it means. That they didn't either means complete incompetence on the part of his staff, or a conscious decision go to "all in" on just winning the pledged delegate count. And to be honest, I suspect the latter to be the case (despite claims after the fact of it all being "unfair"). His staff likely realized that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find enough pro-Trump GOP party members in enough states (how does one qualify to even be in the running to be a delegate?), much less place them in the delegation to make any difference if it came down to later voting rounds in the convention, and chose to focus on winning the pledged count instead. And it was probably the right choice.

Again, doesn't stop people from complaining about it, but it's empty whining IMO.

Edited, Apr 14th 2016 6:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#336 Apr 14 2016 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, point being that it's "empty whining" to you because you're not one of these yahoos putting Trump in the lead. And Trump knows this and is priming his supporters to feel that this is very unfair. Which won't be undone by Reince Priebus waving the rulebook around (which he's been part of writing) and saying it's totally fair because it says so right here.

I agree with you 100% about Trump's poor state level structure and that this is completely of his own making. It's just a fantasy to think that the millions and millions of Trump supporters give a shit.

In other news, Sanders is... not great... in this debate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#337 Apr 14 2016 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
My coworkers were all happy because apparently Bernie did a "mic drop" on the Nightly Show. I stopped watching the Nightly Show quite some time ago, and recently stopped watching the Daily Show. So I didn't catch it, and haven't bothered trying to look up a video.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#338 Apr 14 2016 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Like her or not, agree with her or not, Clinton knows her shit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#339 Apr 14 2016 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, point being that it's "empty whining" to you because you're not one of these yahoos putting Trump in the lead. And Trump knows this and is priming his supporters to feel that this is very unfair. Which won't be undone by Reince Priebus waving the rulebook around (which he's been part of writing) and saying it's totally fair because it says so right here.


I'm more going after the whole narrative I've been hearing that Trump's delegate count somehow represents the will of the voters. Um... When your vote count depends on voters being required by the rules to vote for you, and when given a chance to vote how they want they vote differently, that claim somewhat disappears. It's the rulebook that's given Trump a shot, not the other way around.

Quote:
I agree with you 100% about Trump's poor state level structure and that this is completely of his own making. It's just a fantasy to think that the millions and millions of Trump supporters give a shit.


Yeah. They can suck it though.

Quote:
In other news, Sanders is... not great... in this debate.


Great. Hopefully Clinton will do really well and Sanders will fall by the wayside. Then maybe she'll finally sew this thing up, right? Smiley: grin
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#340 Apr 14 2016 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm more going after the whole narrative I've been hearing that Trump's delegate count somehow represents the will of the voters

I think, more simply put, the argument would be that Trump's massive lead in the popular vote (which then gets translated into pledged delegates) represents the will of the voters. Which, again, isn't an argument I think should be the determining factor but then I'm not a disgruntled Trump voter feeling that the RNC is rigging the system to disenfranchise me and steal the nomination from the "clear" winner either.
Quote:
Great. Hopefully Clinton will do really well and Sanders will fall by the wayside

I can't believe that this is helping him. Whoever told him to go aggressive and sarcastic this debate did him a disservice.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#341 Apr 14 2016 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Let me make it again [...] Let me quote it again
No.
Jophiel wrote:
Whoever told him to go aggressive and sarcastic this debate did him a disservice.
He's in his home town, can't be seen as a yutz. It certainly isn't helping.

On side note, the past week has been a pretty nice barrage of every combination of "Would you vote for X and not Y and why?" that's possible. Apparently the Montgomery Brewster demographic isn't being properly represented by the polls.

Edited, Apr 14th 2016 10:59pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#342 Apr 15 2016 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump has an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal this morning putting forth his argument to voters. While I don't agree with him, I think he'll be persuasive to many:
Trump wrote:
On Saturday, April 9, Colorado had an “election” without voters. Delegates were chosen on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the people of Colorado were not able to cast their ballots to say which nominee they preferred.

A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined.

In recent days, something all too predictable has happened: Politicians furiously defended the system. “These are the rules,” we were told over and over again. If the “rules” can be used to block Coloradans from voting on whether they want better trade deals, or stronger borders, or an end to special-interest vote-buying in Congress—well, that’s just the system and we should embrace it.

Let me ask America a question: How has the “system” been working out for you and your family?

I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has served the interest of political parties at the expense of the people. Members of the club—the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians, the pundits and the special interests—grow rich and powerful while the American people grow poorer and more isolated.

No one forced anyone to cancel the vote in Colorado. Political insiders made a choice to cancel it. And it was the wrong choice.

Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide.

The only antidote to decades of ruinous rule by a small handful of elites is a bold infusion of popular will. On every major issue affecting this country, the people are right and the governing elite are wrong. The elites are wrong on taxes, on the size of government, on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy.

Why should we trust the people who have made every wrong decision to substitute their will for America’s will in this presidential election?

Here, I part ways with Sen. Ted Cruz.

Mr. Cruz has toured the country bragging about his voterless victory in Colorado. For a man who styles himself as a warrior against the establishment (you wouldn’t know it from his list of donors and endorsers), you’d think he would be demanding a vote for Coloradans. Instead, Mr. Cruz is celebrating their disenfranchisement.

Likewise, Mr. Cruz loudly boasts every time party insiders disenfranchise voters in a congressional district by appointing delegates who will vote the opposite of the expressed will of the people who live in that district.

That’s because Mr. Cruz has no democratic path to the nomination. He has been mathematically eliminated by the voters.

While I am self-funding, Mr. Cruz rakes in millions from special interests. Yet despite his financial advantage, Mr. Cruz has won only three primaries outside his home state and trails me by two million votes—a gap that will soon explode even wider. Mr. Cruz loses when people actually get to cast ballots. Voter disenfranchisement is not merely part of the Cruz strategy—it is the Cruz strategy.

The great irony of this campaign is that the “Washington cartel” that Mr. Cruz rails against is the very group he is relying upon in his voter-nullification scheme.

My campaign strategy is to win with the voters. Ted Cruz’s campaign strategy is to win despite them.

What we are seeing now is not a proper use of the rules, but a flagrant abuse of the rules. Delegates are supposed to reflect the decisions of voters, but the system is being rigged by party operatives with “double-agent” delegates who reject the decision of voters.

The American people can have no faith in such a system. It must be reformed.

Just as I have said that I will reform our unfair trade, immigration and economic policies that have also been rigged against Americans, so too will I work closely with the chairman of the Republican National Committee and top GOP officials to reform our election policies. Together, we will restore the faith—and the franchise—of the American people.

We must leave no doubt that voters, not donors, choose the nominee.

How have we gotten to the point where politicians defend a rigged delegate-selection process with more passion than they have ever defended America’s borders?

Perhaps it is because politicians care more about securing their private club than about securing their country.

My campaign will, of course, battle for every last delegate. We will work within the system that exists now, while fighting to have it reformed in the future. But we will do it the right way. My campaign will seek maximum transparency, maximum representation and maximum voter participation.

We will run a campaign based on empowering voters, not sidelining them.

Let us take inspiration from patriotic Colorado citizens who have banded together in protest. Let us make Colorado a rallying cry on behalf of all the forgotten people whose desperate pleas have for decades fallen on the deaf ears and closed eyes of our rulers in Washington, D.C.

The political insiders have had their way for a long time. Let 2016 be remembered as the year the American people finally got theirs.


Edited, Apr 15th 2016 8:03am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#343 Apr 15 2016 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I don't agree with the voterless vote, but either way it just works into Trump's narrative.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#344 Apr 15 2016 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're saying you're voting Trump on Tuesday?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#345 Apr 15 2016 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
You got that conclusion from the same place as "Hillary is weak!" and "Bernie is winning!"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#346 Apr 15 2016 at 7:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's vaunted logic says you're voting for Trump!

You're probably registered independent. Loser.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#347 Apr 15 2016 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Yeah yeah, I'm an undercover liberal who just registered Republican over a decade ago so I could vote Trump. Ya got me.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#348 Apr 15 2016 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Trump is playing a gorgeous populist game. Rebranding Conservatism as a populist insurgency is clever, and probably his best chance in GE. Which is the game he's playing now.

I suspect the CO loss was strategic.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#349 Apr 15 2016 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm more going after the whole narrative I've been hearing that Trump's delegate count somehow represents the will of the voters

I think, more simply put, the argument would be that Trump's massive lead in the popular vote (which then gets translated into pledged delegates) represents the will of the voters.


Sure. And that will puts him at just under 40% of the total popular vote. Actually, just the total which includes votes for Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich, so he has probably somewhat less of the actual total vote cast to date. He needs 50%+1 vote to win. And frankly, I don't think there's any way he gets that percentage if the voters have a choice to simply vote directly. The only way he wins is to take advantage of pledged delegates. So he's hardly playing on anything remotely like a straight democratic/popular vote.

Quote:
Which, again, isn't an argument I think should be the determining factor but then I'm not a disgruntled Trump voter feeling that the RNC is rigging the system to disenfranchise me and steal the nomination from the "clear" winner either.


/shrug

They'd feel that way no matter what happened.

Quote:
Quote:
Great. Hopefully Clinton will do really well and Sanders will fall by the wayside

I can't believe that this is helping him. Whoever told him to go aggressive and sarcastic this debate did him a disservice.


I didn't get a chance to see the debate, but my impression is that he's at a point in the process where this sort of thing doesn't really hurt him. His only chance (and it's silly small anyway) is to go hard at her and hope for some kind of breakdown on her part. So why not? It's not like he's going to win anything for second place anyway. From the bits of clips I did see/hear, it still seems like they're both wearing gloves still. May just have put some weight into them is all. Heck. It seemed more like the moderators were trying really hard to stir things up more than the candidates were. But that's just my edited impression.

Don't think it's going to make much difference in the long run. To the degree that Sanders wanted to impact the message of the campaign, he's long since succeeded, so anything past this point is pure gravy for him. He may have provided a tiny bit more fodder for the general, but not much (again, mostly kid glove stuff going on there).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#350 Apr 15 2016 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Quote:
His only chance (and it's silly small anyway) is to go hard at her


Giggity
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#351 Apr 15 2016 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Doesn't really hurt him" is a far cry from what Sanders needed. He needs to be knocking things out of the park.

The moderators seemed fairly good, really. I didn't really get a sense that they were trying to start a fight.
gbaji wrote:
/shrug

They'd feel that way no matter what happened.

It's funny that people go on about how many new people are voting in the GOP primaries when then it's "Oh well, sucks to be them". Those same people aren't going to be voting in the general if they feel robbed. And let's not pretend that it's Cruz and Kasich drawing in new registration.

At this point, the vibe I get out of the GOP establishment at this point is "We're not going to win this. We're not going to SAY that, of course, but Clinton is going to be president and right now we're just trying to hold this thing together through the summer." The statements out of the party leadership have been more about riding out Trump's supporters than anything else.

Edited, Apr 15th 2016 6:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (35)