The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Flagg]

I think the only way Trump beats Clinton is if she's dead.

Depends.

If Donald Trump is able to attack Hillary on her actual problems and corruption, while Bernie supporters decide to sit this one out. Trump can win.

If instead Trump's tactics instead involve running attack ads showing Hillary barking and then saying "she's weak!" as a result. Yeah, that's not going to end well for Trump.

Yeah, he can yell "She's weak!" and then her campaign does a commercial with her sitting in the situation room during the Bin Laden raid and follow it with Trump encouraging supporters to beat up protesters.

"Americans can tell the difference between a leader with strength and a bully!
I'm Hillary Clinton and I support this message."

[Omega18]

Hillary looks like she is going to win decisively in Arizona with a current lead of over 23% which will be significant delegate wise if it basically holds up. The various media sources called the state for Hillary awhile ago although its taking a long time for much of the election day results to come in with some polling stations still apparently having people in line who have not voted yet after waiting for hours. (As long as they were in line when the polls closed they can still vote.)

[The Romulan Republic]

From CNN, it looks like a big win in Arizona for Clinton, and an even bigger win for Sanders in Utah (approximately 75% right now). Unless I'm forgetting something, that's the biggest margin for Sanders after Vermont.

Still waiting for word on Idaho.

And you know, I really have a problem with CNN calling Arizona while their are still people in line who haven't voted yet.

[The Romulan Republic]

Cruz sweeps Utah at almost 70 percent right now on CNN.

[The Romulan Republic]

Idaho called on CNN.

78% for the Bern.

[The Romulan Republic]

Asshole CNN reporter falsely claims Arizona (Clinton's sole win tonight) is winner take all.

[Flagg]

From CNN, it looks like a big win in Arizona for Clinton, and an even bigger win for Sanders in Utah (approximately 75% right now). Unless I'm forgetting something, that's the biggest margin for Sanders after Vermont.

Still waiting for word on Idaho.

And you know, I really have a problem with CNN calling Arizona while their are still people in line who haven't voted yet.

You expect integrity from the Corporate Nitwit Network?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I hate them.

I pretty much only watch them for voting results, major speeches, and election debates.

They're okay, sometimes, when they just play a speech or something.

I fucking hate a lot of their commentary.

[RogueIce]

According to the Google "US Primary" results, looks like Sanders came out ahead (thus far) yesterday: 57 to 51 delegates. Utah for whatever reason is only showing 82% reporting though, but unless all 10 of the remaining delegates go to Clinton it looks like Sanders eked out an overall win yesterday. Overall I suspect it'll be a wash though: Arizona still has 12 delegates not assigned to a winner (94% reporting) but I'm guessing those will go strongly to Clinton given the current results.

Given that Clinton still has like a 300 pledged delegate lead I'm not sure how much it'll matter, beyond whatever "narratives" the two campaigns and a ratings hungry news media want to start spinning - and of course a nice pretty map graphic that can go to whatever color Sanders is on such things in a 2-1 fashion.

I mean it's all well and good to say "Sanders win two states!" which sound impressive, but if's still only getting states with lower delegate counts than Clinton that's all it is: a sound byte. Which of course you can spin and try to get that whole Momentum Narrative going, but in terms of actual delegates (what truly matters at the end of the day) Clinton is still going stronger.

That and the Democratic primaries being proportional helps too, of course. If these were Winner Take All, Hillary would be without a doubt the winner from yesterday, since Arizona carries more delegates than Idaho and Utah combined.

[The Romulan Republic]

The final tally for Democrats Abroad came out in the last couple days as well. 9 to 4 delegates in Sanders' favour, with Sanders taking almost 69% of the vote (amusingly, O'Malley took 21 and someone named Rocky De La Fuente took 6). So that's my vote counted (Sanders won here in Canada by about two to one).

http://www.democratsabroad.org/global_p ... ry-results

So presuming that the remaining delegates not counted from Utah and Arizona split evenly overall (just for the sake of simplicity), Sanders narrowed the gap over the last few days by 11 delegates.

Not a lot, but we'll see how the upcoming contests go.

Edit: To clarify, O'Malley took 21 votes, and Fuente 6. Actual votes, not percents.

[Purple]

Is Trump still in the lead?

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh yes. Unfortunately.

He took Arizona last night. Cruz took Utah easily.

Never did hear the results from Idaho on the Imbecile side of the isle.

[Purple]

Realistically what would you say are his odds of becoming president assuming he wins the nomination?

[The Romulan Republic]

I have no idea. It depends on so many factors.

I think if the Democrats finish their primary badly divided enough (or Clinton is the nominee and then that indictment finally happens), and if he can unite most of the Republicans behind him (both big ifs), he could win. A major recession or terror attack in America between now and election day could also give the Republicans a boost.

If Drumpf is the nominee and nothing major/unexpected/catastrophic happens between now and election day, I think he'll most likely lose. But that might be wishful thinking, and I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Edit: The thing is, while I hate Bernie Sanders/Donald Drumpf comparisons because they are very different men and candidates in a lot of ways, their is this parallel- they have both tapped into a deep well of anti-establishment sentiment and anger in the general public (Drumpf on the Right and the Bern on the Left).

Whereas Hillary Clinton, the fact that she'd be the first female President aside, is pretty much "corrupt establishment" personified. That could drive down her turnout and enthusiasm relative to Drumpf.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Oh yes. Unfortunately.

He took Arizona last night. Cruz took Utah easily.

Never did hear the results from Idaho on the Imbecile side of the isle.

That's because the Idaho Republican primary was held weeks ago. Cruz won a substantial plurality of the votes there. And yes, Sanders cut into Clinton's delegate lead by about 11 delegates ... which means he only needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination (ignoring superdelegates. The numbers don't change appreciably if you throw in his superdelegates, because he has so few of them.)

Last night, he won substantially less than 68% of the available delegates.

On the bright side, if you ignore superdelegates, Clinton needs to take 54% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination (remember, kids, the magic number is 2383 delegates.) However, as Clinton's campaign doesn't look like it's going to implode badly enough that it's going to start losing by twenty point margins (if anything, she continues to demonstrate that where the electorate is older and more diverse, she wins big ... Utah and Idaho were smaller caucus states where the voting demographic is ... predominantly white), ignoring the superdelegates is being far too generous to Sanders. Throw in the superdelegates, and Clinton only needs 33% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.

So, the story on the Democratic side remains unchanged. Sanders makes lots of noise and picks off smaller enclaves here and there, while Clinton continues her inevitable march toward the nomination.

[Purple]

I have no idea. It depends on so many factors.

I think if the Democrats finish their primary badly divided enough (or Clinton is the nominee and then that indictment finally happens), and if he can unite most of the Republicans behind him (both big ifs), he could win. A major recession or terror attack in America between now and election day could also give the Republicans a boost.

If Drumpf is the nominee and nothing major/unexpected/catastrophic happens between now and election day, I think he'll most likely lose. But that might be wishful thinking, and I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Edit: The thing is, while I hate Bernie Sanders/Donald Drumpf comparisons because they are very different men and candidates in a lot of ways, their is this parallel- they have both tapped into a deep well of anti-establishment sentiment and anger in the general public (Drumpf on the Right and the Bern on the Left).

Whereas Hillary Clinton, the fact that she'd be the first female President aside, is pretty much "corrupt establishment" personified. That could drive down her turnout and enthusiasm relative to Drumpf.

Thanks for the info but will you stop with the D? It's really jarring and makes it hard to read your post because my brain is constantly doing double takes where I notice the error, stop and read the sentence again whilst mentally correcting it. Makes my head hurt. Literally.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sorry if it makes your head hurt.

I'm seriously thinking of referring to this guy henceforth as You Know Who/He Who Must Not Be Named, but that seems a little silly even for me.

Oh yes. Unfortunately.

He took Arizona last night. Cruz took Utah easily.

Never did hear the results from Idaho on the Imbecile side of the isle.

That's because the Idaho Republican primary was held weeks ago. Cruz won a substantial plurality of the votes there. And yes, Sanders cut into Clinton's delegate lead by about 11 delegates ... which means he only needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination (ignoring superdelegates. The numbers don't change appreciably if you throw in his superdelegates, because he has so few of them.)

Last night, he won substantially less than 68% of the available delegates.

On the bright side, if you ignore superdelegates, Clinton needs to take 54% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination (remember, kids, the magic number is 2383 delegates.) However, as Clinton's campaign doesn't look like it's going to implode badly enough that it's going to start losing by twenty point margins (if anything, she continues to demonstrate that where the electorate is older and more diverse, she wins big ... Utah and Idaho were smaller caucus states where the voting demographic is ... predominantly white), ignoring the superdelegates is being far too generous to Sanders. Throw in the superdelegates, and Clinton only needs 33% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.

So, the story on the Democratic side remains unchanged. Sanders makes lots of noise and picks off smaller enclaves here and there, while Clinton continues her inevitable march toward the nomination.

If Clinton needs 54% henceforth to claim the nomination without super delegates (who can conceivably switch sides), their are about twenty states left to vote, and Clinton's strongest region (the South) has finished voting, its too early to use the word "inevitable". She is the most plausible nominee, yes. The frontrunner, yes. But not inevitable.

Wasn't Michigan "inevitable" too?

My position on elections in general is "they're not over until they're over." And this one in particular has been unpredictable. I rather wish it was over, one way or the other, so the party could united against the Republicans and Drumpf, but it isn't, weather we like it or not.

Also, its not just "small enclaves" where Sanders does well. Michigan isn't exactly small, is it? Neither is the upcoming Washington State (which Sanders will likely win).

How do you define "small"?

[Purple]

Sorry if it makes your head hurt.

I'm seriously thinking of referring to this guy henceforth as You Know Who/He Who Must Not Be Named, but that seems a little silly even for me.

Or you could stop being childish about it. No offense or anything. But this sort of thing is on a level of maturity I would expect to see from Trump. You can do better.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm really not interested in rehashing the fight over it in the last thread.

If a mod./admin. tells me it is not permitted to use insulting nicknames for the Republican frontrunner, I won't. Otherwise, well, why shouldn't I? No offence intended to anyone here, really, unless their are people here who support that excuse of a candidate.

I will disagree that my behaviour is on his level, because a) I'm not advocating policies targeting minorities and condoning violence at political rallies, and b) most people expect a higher standard from a Presidential candidate than some random guy on the internet. I'd probably show better manners if I had the audacity to put myself forward as the best person to rule the most powerful nation in the world.

Edit: Anyway, back to the election, does anyone care to speculate on the outcome of the upcoming Washington/Alaska/Hawaii contests?

Going off of rumour/specultation/on-line chatter I've seen, its going to be a Bernie sweep, but I haven't seen a lot of polling.

[Purple]

I'm really not interested in rehashing the fight over it in the last thread.

I can live with that. It's just that well... calling him names. That's so 3rd grade elementary school playground level of opposition. I'll just stop on that.

[Flagg]

According to the Google "US Primary" results, looks like Sanders came out ahead (thus far) yesterday: 57 to 51 delegates. Utah for whatever reason is only showing 82% reporting though, but unless all 10 of the remaining delegates go to Clinton it looks like Sanders eked out an overall win yesterday. Overall I suspect it'll be a wash though: Arizona still has 12 delegates not assigned to a winner (94% reporting) but I'm guessing those will go strongly to Clinton given the current results.

Given that Clinton still has like a 300 pledged delegate lead I'm not sure how much it'll matter, beyond whatever "narratives" the two campaigns and a ratings hungry news media want to start spinning - and of course a nice pretty map graphic that can go to whatever color Sanders is on such things in a 2-1 fashion.

I mean it's all well and good to say "Sanders win two states!" which sound impressive, but if's still only getting states with lower delegate counts than Clinton that's all it is: a sound byte. Which of course you can spin and try to get that whole Momentum Narrative going, but in terms of actual delegates (what truly matters at the end of the day) Clinton is still going stronger.

That and the Democratic primaries being proportional helps too, of course. If these were Winner Take All, Hillary would be without a doubt the winner from yesterday, since Arizona carries more delegates than Idaho and Utah combined.

It's also 2 states that neither Democrat or fake democrat will win, anyway.

[Flagg]

I have no idea. It depends on so many factors.

I think if the Democrats finish their primary badly divided enough (or Clinton is the nominee and then that indictment finally happens), and if he can unite most of the Republicans behind him (both big ifs), he could win. A major recession or terror attack in America between now and election day could also give the Republicans a boost.

If Drumpf is the nominee and nothing major/unexpected/catastrophic happens between now and election day, I think he'll most likely lose. But that might be wishful thinking, and I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Edit: The thing is, while I hate Bernie Sanders/Donald Drumpf comparisons because they are very different men and candidates in a lot of ways, their is this parallel- they have both tapped into a deep well of anti-establishment sentiment and anger in the general public (Drumpf on the Right and the Bern on the Left).

Whereas Hillary Clinton, the fact that she'd be the first female President aside, is pretty much "corrupt establishment" personified. That could drive down her turnout and enthusiasm relative to Drumpf.

Thanks for the info but will you stop with the D? It's really jarring and makes it hard to read your post because my brain is constantly doing double takes where I notice the error, stop and read the sentence again whilst mentally correcting it. Makes my head hurt. Literally.

We've been over this. The admin who runs the site uses the term. If it offends you (I don't like it, personally) get out or get over it. I'd like to not do this entire discussion over again because it offends a nonentity like you.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe, maybe not.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/20b ... minee.html

A Deseret News/KSL poll shows that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, Democrats would be favored to win the deep red state of Utah in November.

The poll revealed that Utah voters would completely reject Trump. Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump 38%-36% while Bernie Sanders leads Trump 48%-37%. Both John Kasich and Ted Cruz would win Utah. Kasich would beat Clinton 59%-29%, and Sanders 54%-35%. Ted Cruz would beat Clinton 60%-32%, and Bernie Sanders 53%-39%. Sixteen percent of those polled said that they would not vote if the matchup is Trump vs. Clinton. If the matchup is Trump vs. Sanders, 9% of Utah voters would not vote.

As polls in Michigan and Ohio previously revealed, a potential Trump nomination would see Republican voters vote in droves for the Democratic nominee. The poll in Utah highlights the degree to which many Republicans won’t vote at all if Trump is the nominee. Republicans aren’t going rally around Trump. Donald Trump also isn’t bringing millions of new people into the Republican camp.

If Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee, the GOP could face a nationwide disaster of their own creation. Trump could turn dark red states like Utah blue. A Trump nomination could trigger a Democratic landslide. It doesn’t matter who the Democratic nomination is, Donald Trump puts states that have been comfortably in the Republican column for decades in jeopardy.



Utah hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 50 years, but the Donald Trump will push towards supporting Clinton or Sanders in November. If Utah is willing to vote Democratic to stop Trump, the scope of the damage that Donald Trump will do to the Republican Party is unlimited.

[Flagg]

Oh yes. Unfortunately.

He took Arizona last night. Cruz took Utah easily.

Never did hear the results from Idaho on the Imbecile side of the isle.

That's because the Idaho Republican primary was held weeks ago. Cruz won a substantial plurality of the votes there. And yes, Sanders cut into Clinton's delegate lead by about 11 delegates ... which means he only needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination (ignoring superdelegates. The numbers don't change appreciably if you throw in his superdelegates, because he has so few of them.)

Last night, he won substantially less than 68% of the available delegates.

On the bright side, if you ignore superdelegates, Clinton needs to take 54% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination (remember, kids, the magic number is 2383 delegates.) However, as Clinton's campaign doesn't look like it's going to implode badly enough that it's going to start losing by twenty point margins (if anything, she continues to demonstrate that where the electorate is older and more diverse, she wins big ... Utah and Idaho were smaller caucus states where the voting demographic is ... predominantly white), ignoring the superdelegates is being far too generous to Sanders. Throw in the superdelegates, and Clinton only needs 33% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.

So, the story on the Democratic side remains unchanged. Sanders makes lots of noise and picks off smaller enclaves here and there, while Clinton continues her inevitable march toward the nomination.

Yeah, ignoring Superdelegates is like ignoring an onrushing semi while crossing the street. You're gonna have a bad time.

[Flagg]

Maybe, maybe not.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/20b ... minee.html

A Deseret News/KSL poll shows that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, Democrats would be favored to win the deep red state of Utah in November.

The poll revealed that Utah voters would completely reject Trump. Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump 38%-36% while Bernie Sanders leads Trump 48%-37%. Both John Kasich and Ted Cruz would win Utah. Kasich would beat Clinton 59%-29%, and Sanders 54%-35%. Ted Cruz would beat Clinton 60%-32%, and Bernie Sanders 53%-39%. Sixteen percent of those polled said that they would not vote if the matchup is Trump vs. Clinton. If the matchup is Trump vs. Sanders, 9% of Utah voters would not vote.

As polls in Michigan and Ohio previously revealed, a potential Trump nomination would see Republican voters vote in droves for the Democratic nominee. The poll in Utah highlights the degree to which many Republicans won’t vote at all if Trump is the nominee. Republicans aren’t going rally around Trump. Donald Trump also isn’t bringing millions of new people into the Republican camp.

If Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee, the GOP could face a nationwide disaster of their own creation. Trump could turn dark red states like Utah blue. A Trump nomination could trigger a Democratic landslide. It doesn’t matter who the Democratic nomination is, Donald Trump puts states that have been comfortably in the Republican column for decades in jeopardy.



Utah hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 50 years, but the Donald Trump will push towards supporting Clinton or Sanders in November. If Utah is willing to vote Democratic to stop Trump, the scope of the damage that Donald Trump will do to the Republican Party is unlimited.

I'll believe it when I see it, TBH. I mean I hope that the poll is accurate, but Utah is redder than red. But I don't have anything that says it's wrong, so here's hoping.