The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Elheru Aran]

Mormons (yes I know I'm generalizing here) are generally a pretty conservative crowd... but they're *savvy* conservatives. The history of their religion and culture means that they tend to try an eye on how things are going in the wider United States, a little more so than most other voters. So it's quite possible that they might flip Democrat if they feel threatened enough by whoever grabs the R nomination. I suspect Cruz swept the Republican primary mostly because they felt he was a better Bible-thumper than Trump... but if he gets the nomination, his craziness will *really* come out. Fact of the matter is, apart from that loser Kasich, the Republicans have no good nominee ahead of them.

[The Romulan Republic]

This election is weird. I think a lot of the conventional boundaries are and rules are being challenged, and no one really has a clue how its going to turn out.

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

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.

This is an incredibly ironic statement coming from someone who stubbornly insists on spelling "never" as "newer", and has never obliged anyone to stop doing it despite multiple requests to do so. Until you stop with that childish nonsense, you have no right to ask TRR to stop using "Drumpf". I mean, do you totally lack self-awareness or are you a hypocrite on purpose?

[Elheru Aran]

This election is weird. I think a lot of the conventional boundaries are and rules are being challenged, and no one really has a clue how its going to turn out.

Yeah. The safest prediction is that Clinton will probably grab the D nomination. That's... about it. And even that isn't 100%, as there's the whole thing with the server, which brings up a non-zero chance that she may get indicted at some point. Sanders has enough popularity that he has a shot-- a very small one, but a shot nonetheless.

On the R side... hoo boy. Jesus-freak-wacko Cruz on one side, straight-up wacko Trump on the other, Kasich sitting quietly in the background. It's going to be a very interesting convention in July, barring one or the other of them getting a distinct lead by then-- I think it's too early to tell even now. It's quite possibly that if it starts looking like the Republican establishment is trying to shoehorn Cruz into the lead, Trump will just go ahead and bounce into a third-party position, but I think he's smart enough to know he should wait till the convention in order to make a break with the party as public as possible and to hold on to as many delegates as he can get in that time.

[Dalton]

Mathematically, it is not possible for Donny Jingles (I refuse to accord him his proper name as I find him to be unworthy of even that much respect) to reach 1,237 delegates before June 7, the last day of primaries. I suspect his opponents Cruzader and Kasich will stick around until then just so they can try to force a brokered convention.

[Flagg]

Mathematically, it is not possible for Donny Jingles (I refuse to accord him his proper name as I find him to be unworthy of even that much respect) to reach 1,237 delegates before June 7, the last day of primaries. I suspect his opponents Cruzader and Kasich will stick around until then just so they can try to force a brokered convention.

The riots should "Il Douche" not get the nomination will probably make '68 look like a fucking rowdy wedding reception. Especially considering how invested his stormtrooper white supremacist supporters are in him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, that sort of shit is what I'm most afraid of.

On the plus side, great opportunity to put a lot of violent white supremacist Teabaggers in prison.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

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?

Michigan demonstrated that it was a fluke. It would've mattered more if Sanders hadn't gotten completely pasted the following week. All Clinton has to do to secure the nomination is to merely not do badly. All Sanders has to do to secure the nomination is to win every remaining state by twenty point margins. Which scenario is more likely? Given how Sanders does outside of Michigan and smaller states; you can probably guess that I'm not betting any money on Sanders.

Let's assume, for a moment, that Princess Celestia makes every present Clinton superdelegate a Sanders supporter ... giving him 1404 delegates to Clinton's 1214. Now he only would need to win about 46% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. Clinton would need to secure about 54% of the remaining delegates. National polling still puts this within reach for her, but the likely outcome is that neither of them arrive at the convention with enough delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot. It then becomes a contested convention. A contested convention isn't a favorable outcome for Sanders, since the last thing he needs is a convention floor fight hanging over him, should he emerge as the nominee.

The obvious problem with the above scenario is that it forced me to invoke ponies; and I hate ponies.

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"?

What proof do you have to suggest that Washington State will go to Sanders? Demographics suggest that Washington state is more diverse than the usual Sanders state (excepting Michigan.)

[The Romulan Republic]

A contested convention would suck for either candidate.

My view is that whoever comes out ahead in the primaries/caucuses should be backed by the super delegates. Respect the will of the voters.

As to proof that Sanders will win Washington state? I have none, obviously, seeing as I do not possess precognition.

Evidence that he could?

Well, how's this:

http://www.inquisitr.com/2906117/bernie ... ve-stream/

Bernie Sanders started a busy Sunday in Washington State with a rally in Vancouver that can be seen in a full replay video, with an overflow crowd expected as Sanders spends the day attempting to seal what is expected to be a solid victory in the Washington Democratic caucuses on March 26. But with Sanders needing to capture every delegate that he possibly can as he pursues front-runner Hillary Clinton, Sanders is taking no chances with the 101 delegates up for grabs in the Pacific Northwestern state.

The first Bernie Sanders event of the day takes place at the Hudson’s Bay High School gym in Vancouver. For readers in the Vancouver area planning to attend the rally, the Sanders campaign said via its website that the 4,400 available seats were already accounted for by RSVPs submitted through the site. Sanders also holds rallies in Seattle and Spokane on Sunday.

Of course, a live stream of the Vancouver rally can be viewed by scrolling down on this page.

While no significant polling has been conducted in Washington, Sanders is expected to carry the state. According to a report in The Seattle Times, pre-registration for the March 26 caucuses have “skewed” toward young voters — the bedrock of the Bernie Sanders base.

Additionally, Washington State has not been traditionally friendly to the Clinton political clan, at least not in primary season. In 2008, Hillary Clinton lost the state in lopsided fashion to then-Senator Barack Obama. And in 1992, Bill Clinton not only finished behind his competitors Paul Tsongas — a former Massachusetts senator — and former (and now, again, current) California Governor Jerry Brown, he actually placed fourth also behind “uncommitted.”

The Vancouver, Washington, Bernie Sanders rally is scheduled to get underway at 1 p.m. Pacific Time on Sunday, March 20, two hours after doors open. That’s 4 p.m. Eastern, 3 p.m. Central.

Watch a full replay of the Vancouver Bernie Sanders rally in the video below.


SHARE 1.6K
TWEET
The Vancouver rally took place just hours after Sanders wrapped up a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, on Saturday night. Watch a replay of that Bernie Sanders event in the video below.


SHARE 1.6K
TWEET
Sanders rallies have been mostly feel-good affairs, with overwhelmingly friendly crowds wildly cheering Sanders “radical ideas” about free public college tuition, single payer health care, campaign finance reform, and numerous other progressive proposals.

But the the Bernie Sanders rally in Phoenix was briefly interrupted by a woman who removed her shirt to reveal slogans penned on her upper body. But, as it turned out, the woman was a Sanders supporter who said that she had been unable to attend a Donald Trump rally in Phoenix earlier, so she chose to protest against Trump at the Bernie Sanders rally.


One favorite Sanders issue that may not go over as well in Washington is his stance on trade. The Vermont senator, who describes himself as a “democratic socialist,” has taken a hard line against free trade agreements and has used the position to hammer Hillary Clinton in televised debates, as well as in his standard stump speech.

But an editorial in The Seattle Times on Friday advised Sanders to “bone up” on issues specific to Washington before his Sunday three-stop tour of the state, and called him “curiously brittle” on trade issues.

The editorial said that the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal “would further expand markets for Washington state goods to 11 other Pacific Rim nations,” and that the Export-Import Bank has “powered” employment in Washington.

Bernie Sanders Rally Live Stream Washington
Vancouver, Washington, will “Feel the Bern” on Sunday morning, March 20 (Photo by Ralph Freso/Getty Images)
Both the TPP and E-I bank have been the target of Sanders’ wrath in recent debates and on the campaign trail.

“Unequivocal expressions of support for trade legislation and trade agreements in a trade-dependent state,” might be a way for Clinton to boost her standing in Washington, and cut into what is perceived to be a Sanders lead in the state, the newspaper said.

Also, it is misleading, I would say outright dishonest, to say that Sanders has to win every state by 70%. That might be true as an average, but he could afford to do worse in some states if he does better in others, particularly ones with more delegates.

I'm not saying Clinton isn't more likely to win, but please try to make your case accurately.

[The Romulan Republic]

In any case, my view is that a case can be made for both Sanders and Clinton to stay in until all states have voted, or at least unless it becomes mathematically impossible for one or the other to gain a majority of pledged delegates in the primaries/caucuses. Provided that they run a reasonable civil and honest campaign.

However, once we get to the convention, I don't want to see haggling on the convention floor from anyone unless its basically a tie among pledged delegates. Whosoever does not have the lead should then, at the latest, drop out and unequivocally endorse and campaign for whosoever does.

[Flagg]

Sanders went to Vancouver, Seattle, and Spokane? He must want to lose here. Clinton is in Seattle and Everett where most Boeing employees live. Plus the eastern side of the state I can't see going for Sanders as all 5 democrats there seem more inclined to vote for the further right candidate, which is Clinton. But we're a caucus state and we didn't take kindly to Clinton in 2008 when she was trying to push the bullshit line that caucuses (where Obama had gotten a lot if not most of his delegates) "shouldn't count" as opposed to primaries.

Also IIRC SEIU came out for Sanders (I could be wrong) and they are a huge Union here.

[Flagg]

Looking at 538 Blog, Clinton is still ahead by around 300 delegates, so nothing changed last night. I do agree that Sanders, despite being the non-Democrat User Whore that he is, should stay in until it's a mathematical impossibility for him to win. But that's not as far out in the future as people seem to think.

[The Romulan Republic]

So... Arizona was a clusterfuck.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -day-fail/

Some Arizona voters waited in line for up to four hours to cast their ballots on March 22. Many took to social media to document their experiences in line, even after the winners were projected. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Update: Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) issued a statement Wednesday calling the long lines "unacceptable" and calling for an open primary that would allow independents to vote.


Amid an election that has seen record turnout in states across the nation, one of Arizona's most populous counties cut its polling locations by some 70 percent to save money.

Campaign 2016 Email Updates
Get the best analysis of the presidential race.
Sign up
It turned out to be the wrong decision.

All day Tuesday, voters in Maricopa County reported waiting in lines that stretched around the block, sometimes for hours. County officials told local news the long lines were in part to blame on independent voters showing up without realizing they couldn't vote in Arizona's closed Democratic and Republican primaries. But at least one voter who contacted The Washington Post said she was turned away even though she's a registered Democrat and that election officials blamed a computer glitch that rendered many Democrats as independents in the eyes of the system.


But it's also notable that in 2012, the county had some 200 polling places. This time around it had 60.

County officials weren't immediately available for comment, but Maricopa County spokeswoman Elizabeth Bartholomew told the Associated Press the trimming was to save money and because a majority of voters get early ballots mailed to them. Plus, independents can't vote in either side's primary, and they make up a third of the electorate.

In other words, county officials bet against high turnout on primary day in Tuesday's Republican and Democratic presidential contests. And they lost.

It was common for voters in the Phoenix area — the most populous city in by far the most populous county — to wait at least an hour, the Associated Press reports. At a polling location in downtown Phoenix that stretched halfway down the block, a couple passed out drinks and snacks to would-be voters — some of whom said they'd been waiting more than two hours. At another Phoenix location, the polling place ran out of ballots and election officials had to print new ones. A voter who contacted The Washington Post said Mesa, a suburb of 500,000 people had four places to vote, and few on public transportation routes.


This isn't some small county we're talking about here. Maricopa County is home to Arizona's largest city, Phoenix, and at 4 million, and it makes up about 60 percent of the state's population. And on both sides of the race, Arizona is the night's biggest prize in terms of delegates.

12News grabbed official county maps to help visualize just how drastically the county cut its polling locations:

2012 Marciopa County polling locations
2012 Marciopa County polling locations
2016 Maricopa County polling locations
2016 Maricopa County polling locations
Potentially adding to the confusion was news that for the first time, voters in the county could go to whatever polling place they want.

Long lines were also prominent at Arizona State University, a hotspot for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), where maps show several polling locations have been cut. Sanders was losing the state's primary by a wide margin.



Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan.

Doubt it would have changed who won the state, but it might have effected the delegate count, conceivably.

[Flagg]

Gotta make sure the non-existent voter-fraud a photo ID would prevent is stopped less the 1 or 2 cases that might happen per decade completely degrades the democratic process!

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not even that.

They cut the number of polling places drastically to save fucking money.

Guess Republicans can put a price on Democracy.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Its not even that.

They cut the number of polling places drastically to save fucking money.

Guess Republicans can put a price on Democracy.

What evidence do you have that Republicans were responsible for the budget cuts? The article you posted makes absolutely zero claims of that sort.

[Flagg]

Its not even that.

They cut the number of polling places drastically to save fucking money.

Guess Republicans can put a price on Democracy.

Yeah, they do that in certain areas. The fact that those areas are loaded with demographically high democratic voters is coincidence.

They's a victim a' soycumstance!!!

[Flagg]

Its not even that.

They cut the number of polling places drastically to save fucking money.

Guess Republicans can put a price on Democracy.

What evidence do you have that Republicans were responsible for the budget cuts? The article you posted makes absolutely zero claims of that sort.

It's a Republican controlled state and has been like, forever?

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's a Republican controlled state and has been like, forever?

So? Was the decision made on the state level, or the county level, or what? Is the electoral profile of Maricopa County the same as it is for the entire state (considering one of the congressman that represents that county is a Democrat, I would hazard a no)? Who made the decision: elected officials or municipal officials? Was it made by one person or a group of people, and were all of those people of the same party (if they even had party affiliations)? What about the word "evidence" do you not understand?

[Terralthra]

Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, is taking blame for the short lines, but refusing to resign. She is an elected Republican.

And that took like 10 seconds on Google, you lazy fuck. Like Republicans haven't been curtailing public funds and restricting voting for years.

[Flagg]

Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, is taking blame for the short lines, but refusing to resign. She is an elected Republican.

And that took like 10 seconds on Google, you lazy fuck. Like Republicans haven't been curtailing public funds and restricting voting for years.

Now, now. Don't poke the vendettapath or he'll take random swipes at you for no reason, too. I mean Arizona being the state that elected Jan "stares blankly at camera for 30 seconds during a debate" Brewer for Governor, John "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain as a Senator, and Maricopa county being the domain of Sheriff Joe "Desert Gulag" Arpaio isn't enough fucking evidence that Republicans control where voting takes place. You need a 700 page dissertation and a bibliography.

[Knife]

Mormons (yes I know I'm generalizing here) are generally a pretty conservative crowd... but they're *savvy* conservatives. The history of their religion and culture means that they tend to try an eye on how things are going in the wider United States, a little more so than most other voters. So it's quite possible that they might flip Democrat if they feel threatened enough by whoever grabs the R nomination. I suspect Cruz swept the Republican primary mostly because they felt he was a better Bible-thumper than Trump... but if he gets the nomination, his craziness will *really* come out. Fact of the matter is, apart from that loser Kasich, the Republicans have no good nominee ahead of them.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,


Sorry live in mormon land. They're waiting for who ever Mitt tells them too. Mormon's are caught between trying to show the Baptists how christian they are and want to be friends with, and natural revulsion over the over the top crap going on in the GOP. Granted, there are some Mormon Dems, the Dem caucus I went to had x10 the people they do in a 'normal' year. But for the most part, Mormon's are wannabe christian conservatives who just want to be part of the crowd, but balk slightly at crazy like Trump. They aren't going to jump ship completely and go Dem, they'll pull the lever for Cruz and pat themselves on the back for being true Christians and conservatives, Beck and Limbaugh will tell them they are.

[Raw Shark]

Donny Jingles

[jwl]

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.

This is rather assuming that anything that can go wrong goes wrong for Clinton rather than Trump.

I get the impression that some republican higher-ups are thinking of supporting a third party if Trump or Cruz become the nominee. I can even remember hearing that one of them said they were rooting for Clinton to win the presidency. If they follow through on this it could be bad for Trump.

There's also people in this thread who seem convinced that some of Trump's rhetoric and the violence that may result on this is steps over the line to illegal. If the police are also convinced by this, you might see Trump getting arrested, which would be somewhat unhealthy for his presidential bid.

[Simon_Jester]

I can see why a number of Republicans would split from the party if Trump won the nomination, because he's trying to take the party in a direction significantly different from the one it's been on.

But what about Cruz?

...

Another point involving Trump is that he's involved in ongoing lawsuits and fraud investigations. I'm not sure which would be worse for a presidential candidate- being indicted for mishandling classified documents, or being mishandled for fraud.

Some voters may decide they'd rather be deceived by Clinton than outright robbed by Trump.