US Elections 2016

[Tazio]

Oddly Machete Kills is on Film4 just now.

 

And the mad president played by Charlie Sheen has building a wall along the border with Mexico as his number 1 achievement.

[BigC]

You're disagreeing with a point I didn't make.

 

Democracy is the ideal of systematic popular influence on politics. Democracy is also the set of techniques and processes of carrying out that process. It doesn't mean perfect equality of opportunity. The notion that the people freely pick the best candidate at all times is a total myth, of course, but that's not what democracy is.

 

 

 

The short answer involves the division of powers between the branches of government in the US and the houses of Congress. To a majority coalition that allows anyone to create policy across the branches, you have to have representations in all the branches, and that means a bare minimum of 25 states in the Senate and 200+ House districts. Plus, because of devolution to the states, every national party needs state party allies to do anything, and vice versa.

 

To see how it works without parties, the case of Jesse "The Body" Ventura is particularly useful (and entertaining). Best known of course as a professional wrestler and supporting actor in Predator, he got elected Governor of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket (the remnants of Ross Perot's movement). With almost no campaign budget, and promising legalization of marijuana, decriminalization of prostitution, and a balanced budget among other things, and campaigning using gimmicks such as selling Jesse "The Body Politick" Ventura talking action figures, Ventura split the Democratic and Republican votes and truly shocked the political world.

 

In his four years as governor, after promising to "take the best ideas from both parties," he perpetually squabbled with both parties the state legislature, failing to get any meaningful policy proposal through, and with his proposed budgets tabled and largely ignored. Enervated by the whole experience, he declined to run for re-election. The Reform Party effectively reached its peak with Ventura, declining fairly rapidly afterwards and dwindled to irrelevance.

 

Looking at it another way, on policy grounds, there's little difference between the Sanders candidacy of 2016 and the Nader candidacy of 2000 and 2004. Nader also ran on effectively a return to Keynesian and labor-centric politics that the Democratic party downplayed under President Clinton, decrying both parties as tools of neoliberalism. However, Nader tactically ran with the nomination of the US Green Party in what was effectively a spoiler campaign to try to force Al Gore to move left, and instead pretty directly contributed to the election of President Bush. Sanders, on the other hand, has pitched his fight as an "inside the tent" fight, holding his criticism of Sec. Clinton to specific policy issues, and has already signaled that he will endorse and campaign for Clinton in the general election. Nader is (IMO quite rightly) a political pariah at this point. Sanders has already received more votes nationally in the primary than Nader did in the general, and will enter the national convention with a massive number of delegates and be in the catbird's seat when it comes to negotiating cabinet positions, platform planks, or future activism roles. In short, Sanders has done far more to move US politics to the left than Nader ever did, and it's because he stayed inside the Democratic coalition instead of running against it.

Great post UA!

[Stephen Muddie]

Aye great if you believe in fairy stories.

 

I am actually really bored of the ineptitude of the VI machine now

[JamboX2]

You're disagreeing with a point I didn't make.

 

Democracy is the ideal of systematic popular influence on politics. Democracy is also the set of techniques and processes of carrying out that process. It doesn't mean perfect equality of opportunity. The notion that the people freely pick the best candidate at all times is a total myth, of course, but that's not what democracy is.

 

 

 

The short answer involves the division of powers between the branches of government in the US and the houses of Congress. To a majority coalition that allows anyone to create policy across the branches, you have to have representations in all the branches, and that means a bare minimum of 25 states in the Senate and 200+ House districts. Plus, because of devolution to the states, every national party needs state party allies to do anything, and vice versa.

 

To see how it works without parties, the case of Jesse "The Body" Ventura is particularly useful (and entertaining). Best known of course as a professional wrestler and supporting actor in Predator, he got elected Governor of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket (the remnants of Ross Perot's movement). With almost no campaign budget, and promising legalization of marijuana, decriminalization of prostitution, and a balanced budget among other things, and campaigning using gimmicks such as selling Jesse "The Body Politick" Ventura talking action figures, Ventura split the Democratic and Republican votes and truly shocked the political world.

 

In his four years as governor, after promising to "take the best ideas from both parties," he perpetually squabbled with both parties the state legislature, failing to get any meaningful policy proposal through, and with his proposed budgets tabled and largely ignored. Enervated by the whole experience, he declined to run for re-election. The Reform Party effectively reached its peak with Ventura, declining fairly rapidly afterwards and dwindled to irrelevance.

 

Looking at it another way, on policy grounds, there's little difference between the Sanders candidacy of 2016 and the Nader candidacy of 2000 and 2004. Nader also ran on effectively a return to Keynesian and labor-centric politics that the Democratic party downplayed under President Clinton, decrying both parties as tools of neoliberalism. However, Nader tactically ran with the nomination of the US Green Party in what was effectively a spoiler campaign to try to force Al Gore to move left, and instead pretty directly contributed to the election of President Bush. Sanders, on the other hand, has pitched his fight as an "inside the tent" fight, holding his criticism of Sec. Clinton to specific policy issues, and has already signaled that he will endorse and campaign for Clinton in the general election. Nader is (IMO quite rightly) a political pariah at this point. Sanders has already received more votes nationally in the primary than Nader did in the general, and will enter the national convention with a massive number of delegates and be in the catbird's seat when it comes to negotiating cabinet positions, platform planks, or future activism roles. In short, Sanders has done far more to move US politics to the left than Nader ever did, and it's because he stayed inside the Democratic coalition instead of running against it.

Interesting post, have you a pamphlet I can subscribe to?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Interesting post, have you a pamphlet I can subscribe to?

 

So I'm honestly not sure if this is a dig or an honest query.

 

In any case, this is a good article about where the Sanders campaign goes from here.  http://prospect.org/article/long-march-bernie%E2%80%99s-army

[aussieh]

So I'm honestly not sure if this is a dig or an honest query.

 

In any case, this is a good article about where the Sanders campaign goes from here. http://prospect.org/article/long-march-bernie%E2%80%99s-army

I think the pamphlet request, is a big giveaway.

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by aussieh

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I think the pamphlet request, is a big giveaway.

 

 

So I think I generally do well on Scots to American translation, but I'm honestly not sure what he's saying. I hate it when someone insults me and I don't understand what they're saying . . .  

[aussieh]

So I think I generally do well on Scots to American translation, but I'm honestly not sure what he's saying. I hate it when someone insults me and I don't understand what they're saying . . .

He would probably have asked for a link to, said subject.

 

Fwiw, I enjoyed your post.

[aussieh]

I heard Sanders this morning, he says his numbers are bigger than trumps, in every state.

[Shanks said no]

Anyway, back on topic. How come Sanders did so well in Washington state,Alaska and Hawaii? Is this a turning point or was this expected?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

The US Capitol Visitors Centre & The White House are on lock down after reports of shots fired.

 

No doubts Donald Trump will be telling everybody not to visit Washington as it's not safe, just like he's told everybody that Europe isn't safe.

[JamboX2]

So I'm honestly not sure if this is a dig or an honest query.

 

In any case, this is a good article about where the Sanders campaign goes from here. http://prospect.org/article/long-march-bernie%E2%80%99s-army

Genuine enquiry (typed when under the influence!). Sorry. But thanks for the link on that point!

 

The pamphlet line is a Simpsons thing. Sorry! No harm meant.

Edited March 28, 2016 by JamboX2

[aussieh]

Genuine enquiry (typed when under the influence!). Sorry. But thanks for the link on that point!

 

The pamphlet line is a Simpsons thing. Sorry! No harm meant.

Regrets, ive had a few. Too many.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Genuine enquiry (typed when under the influence!). Sorry. But thanks for the link on that point!

 

The pamphlet line is a Simpsons thing. Sorry! No harm meant.

No worries (and let's be honest if I minded the odd dig I wouldn't be on JKB) -- I thought maybe it was something along the lines of "cool story bro."

 

 

Anyway, back on topic. How come Sanders did so well in Washington state,Alaska and Hawaii? Is this a turning point or was this expected?

 

538 is saying it's due to caucuses instead of primaries (caucuses benefit candidates with passionate supporters) and low percentages of African-Americans (who are supporting Clinton by big margins).

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-continues-to-dominate-caucuses-but-hes-about-to-run-out-of-them/

 

The northeastern primaries that are still on the calendar have a lot of delegates and will favor Clinton.  Sanders has to find a way to win those, and I don't think he can -- he'd need to start with a big win in Wisconsin.  I'd put odds of a Clinton nomination at somewhere between 10/1 and 15/1 at this point.

[JamboX2]

No worries (and let's be honest if I minded the odd dig I wouldn't be on JKB) -- I thought maybe it was something along the lines of "cool story bro."

 

 

 

538 is saying it's due to caucuses instead of primaries (caucuses benefit candidates with passionate supporters) and low percentages of African-Americans (who are supporting Clinton by big margins).

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-continues-to-dominate-caucuses-but-hes-about-to-run-out-of-them/

 

The northeastern primaries that are still on the calendar have a lot of delegates and will favor Clinton. Sanders has to find a way to win those, and I don't think he can -- he'd need to start with a big win in Wisconsin. I'd put odds of a Clinton nomination at somewhere between 10/1 and 15/1 at this point.

What do you think the likelihood of a Democratic win in both houses is?

 

After all, should Sanders end up in the White House then he needs congress to work with him to get his policies through into law. Republicans (I imagine) won't work with him. But will Blue-Dog Democrats?

[Peebo]

No worries (and let's be honest if I minded the odd dig I wouldn't be on JKB) -- I thought maybe it was something along the lines of "cool story bro."

 

 

 

538 is saying it's due to caucuses instead of primaries (caucuses benefit candidates with passionate supporters) and low percentages of African-Americans (who are supporting Clinton by big margins).

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-continues-to-dominate-caucuses-but-hes-about-to-run-out-of-them/

 

The northeastern primaries that are still on the calendar have a lot of delegates and will favor Clinton. Sanders has to find a way to win those, and I don't think he can -- he'd need to start with a big win in Wisconsin. I'd put odds of a Clinton nomination at somewhere between 10/1 and 15/1 at this point.

I'll stick a grand on at 10/1.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

What do you think the likelihood of a Democratic win in both houses is?

 

After all, should Sanders end up in the White House then he needs congress to work with him to get his policies through into law. Republicans (I imagine) won't work with him. But will Blue-Dog Democrats?

 

At this point, it's way too early to say. Larry Sabato runs one of the best sites on forecasting this stuff, and right now it's mostly spitballing. (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/)

 

In the Senate, which is considerably more predictable because of so many fewer races (only 1/3 of the chamber is up for election every two years), it could be a very good year for the Democrats.  They need 5 wins to get a majority outright, and will be favored to pick up Illinois and Wisconsin, and have a decent shot at winning Florida and New Hampshire.  After that, they need to hold their existing seats (particularly in Colorado and Nevada), and then pick up wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, or Louisiana.   If the GOP has a strong Presidential candidate, that should be very tough, but right now they certainly don't appear to be on their way to nominating one.  If Trump is the nominee, the Senate probably flips.

 

The House is such a weird mess at this point thanks to partisan redistricting (known in the US for historical reasons as "gerrymandering" -- dunno if that term crosses the pond).  I *think* if the Republican national ticket is a disaster, the House flips, but that's really hard to figure at this point because so much of it can come down to state-level turnout and who the candidate is.

 

At this point, a landslide Presidential loss and the loss of both houses might finally be the slap back to reality that the Republican party needs. 

[Stephen Muddie]

The Illusion of Choice

[BigC]

A flip of both houses would be fantastic but I reckon it would only last two years before the house went back in to republican hands.

 

That would still give them 2 good years to get stuff done!

[Rab]

The Illusion of Choice

 

So deep man.

 

I think we're past the 'democracy' argument. I don't think anyone is under any illusions about how similar the Democrats and Republican are in real terms. This thread is more about what the eventualities are likely to be, and a little bit of why things might end up the way they end up. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Trump at it again.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/donald-trump-abortion-town-hall/

 

First he says Women should be punished if they have an abortion, then later retracts it by saying it should be the doctors who should face punishment.

 

IMO, instead of making America great again, this man is going to take America back decades if he ever gets the top job.

[maroonlegions]

Money buys you power, influence and stature.

Could you run for president?, could I run for PM?.

No because we couldn't buy the exposure.

We may all have a vote, but we're all influenced by the media, who are king makers.

 

Seems that a possible bit of skulduggery  is afoot in regards to the vote in Arizona. 

 

Democracy they say. The terminology "democracy" replace that word called  "freedom"..  lol; 

 

'Anonymous Hive' Vows To Investigate Voter Fraud Allegations In Arizona

On Tuesday March 23rd Arizona took their turn in America?s primary election season and in a unspectacular result both Trump and Clinton won their respective parties?

ANONHQ.COM

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

 

Seems that a possible bit of skulduggery  is afoot in regards to the vote in Arizona. 

 

Democracy they say. The terminology "democracy" replace that word called  "freedom"..  lol; 

 

'Anonymous Hive' Vows To Investigate Voter Fraud Allegations In Arizona

On Tuesday March 23rd Arizona took their turn in America?s primary election season and in a unspectacular result both Trump and Clinton won their respective parties?

ANONHQ.COM

 

 

 

 

Congratulations!  You've managed to stumble upon one of the actual, true, not-made-up, not-overblown threats to democracy!

 

Voter suppression of minorities has been part of the Republican playbook across the country for at least 40 years (before the Voting Rights Act it was even worse, in both parties, but let's take that as a starting point for the current era of it).  As insiders in the Nixon administrations are now admitting freely, the "War on Drugs" was, among other things, a means of cracking down on minorities.  (Drug use rates are fairly uniform across race and class, but poor racial minorities are arrested and incarcerated at 10-20 times the rate of middle class whites.)  In many states, even after release from prison and the end of probation or parole, convicted felons are barred from voting at all levels.

 

To add to that, largely Republican administrations have been closing polling places, reducing voting hours, understaffing polling places, and reducing early voting, all of which make it harder for working class people or people with limited transportation to get to the polls.  On top of that, Congress neglected to renew major portions of the Voting Rights Act, and conservative judges have struck down portions of it requiring federal oversight of state-level redistricting.  Further, many states have been passing laws requiring photo ID at the voting booth, which many older urban dwellers don't have because they don't drive (and therefore don't have drivers' licenses, the most common form of photo ID).  What's the goal of all of this?  Fewer working class and minority voters.  Why would anyone do that?  Because they overwhelmingly vote Democratic, that's why.

 

See, if folks would actually pay as much attention to this stuff as they did to Sec. Clinton's f@#$&*(%^ing emails, I would be thrilled.

[aussieh]

 

Seems that a possible bit of skulduggery is afoot in regards to the vote in Arizona.

 

Democracy they say. The terminology "democracy" replace that word called "freedom".. lol;

'Anonymous Hive' Vows To Investigate Voter Fraud Allegations In Arizona

On Tuesday March 23rd Arizona took their turn in America?s primary election season and in a unspectacular result both Trump and Clinton won their respective parties?

ANONHQ.COM

 

Do you think the poll tax was a policy to stop the people voting, ML?.

The more I think about it, the more i get the feeling , she used it to stop people registering who dont vote Tory.

 

Probably howling at the moon, but I'm becoming very suspicious the older i get.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Oh goodness, they really have found a major cover-up in the Clinton emails.  This could change everything.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/31/1508655/-Clinton-Investigation-Reveals-a-Devistating-Cover-Up

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Just when you think it's about to close down . . . 

 

Cruz and Sanders win Wisconsin by 13 points each.  It's now mathematically impossible for Cruz to win a majority of pledged delegates, and Clinton is still easily the odds-on favorite to win the nomination, but Trump may be imploding and this puts pressure on Clinton to win New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

 

At this point I expect Clinton to put it to bed in a couple of weeks, but who knows with the GOP.  I can't figure out how this doesn't turn into a floor fight at the convention at this point.

[niblick1874]

Trump's going to be lubed up and violated by the party, if it comes down to a contested convention.

 

Excelente!

 

 

I don't see how it can end up pleasing and it certainly won't be for the people that voted for Trump. If/when this happens, it will piss of a lot of people that thought the whole thing was corrupt to begin with and this will just confirm it for them. They will see it as a very serious threat, if not an end, to what they thought was their only chance to get their country back. As I have said, this could get very messy. People need to forget about what Trump is and remember that a lot of the people that are voting for him are not voting for Trump but rather that he is the only one that does not seem to them to be part of a corrupt system.    

[Peebo]

I don't see how it can end up pleasing and it certainly won't be for the people that voted for Trump. If/when this happens, it will piss of a lot of people that thought the whole thing was corrupt to begin with and this will just confirm it for them. They will see it as a very serious threat, if not an end, to what they thought was their only chance to get their country back. As I have said, this could get very messy. People need to forget about what Trump is and remember that a lot of the people that are voting for him are not voting for Trump but rather that he is the only one that does not seem to them to be part of a corrupt system.

If it goes to a contested convention, then that's because Trump hasn't secured enough delegates. So it's tough titties to those who did vote for him in the primaries, despite how pissed they are. That's the rules. Unsure how it would confirm any corruption.

 

Also unsure how any sane person would not be pleased by a chain of events that would result in Trump not becoming president. He is a ****ing bigoted arsehole.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Peebo

[Sawdust Caesar]

Congratulations!  You've managed to stumble upon one of the actual, true, not-made-up, not-overblown threats to democracy!

 

Voter suppression of minorities has been part of the Republican playbook across the country for at least 40 years (before the Voting Rights Act it was even worse, in both parties, but let's take that as a starting point for the current era of it).  As insiders in the Nixon administrations are now admitting freely, the "War on Drugs" was, among other things, a means of cracking down on minorities.  (Drug use rates are fairly uniform across race and class, but poor racial minorities are arrested and incarcerated at 10-20 times the rate of middle class whites.)  In many states, even after release from prison and the end of probation or parole, convicted felons are barred from voting at all levels.

 

To add to that, largely Republican administrations have been closing polling places, reducing voting hours, understaffing polling places, and reducing early voting, all of which make it harder for working class people or people with limited transportation to get to the polls.  On top of that, Congress neglected to renew major portions of the Voting Rights Act, and conservative judges have struck down portions of it requiring federal oversight of state-level redistricting.  Further, many states have been passing laws requiring photo ID at the voting booth, which many older urban dwellers don't have because they don't drive (and therefore don't have drivers' licenses, the most common form of photo ID).  What's the goal of all of this?  Fewer working class and minority voters.  Why would anyone do that?  Because they overwhelmingly vote Democratic, that's why.

 

See, if folks would actually pay as much attention to this stuff as they did to Sec. Clinton's f@#$&*(%^ing emails, I would be thrilled.

Mate, your lot make our lot look like paragons of virtue, almost.

[niblick1874]

If it goes to a contested convention, then that's because Trump hasn't secured enough delegates. So it's tough titties to those who did vote for him in the primaries, despite how pissed they are. That's the rules. Unsure how it would confirm any corruption.

 

Also unsure how any sane person would not be pleased by a chain of events that would result in Trump not becoming president. He is a ******* bigoted arsehole.

I am talking about how they will see it and not what you make of the whole thing.

[Peebo]

I am talking about how they will see it and not what you make of the whole thing.

Cool. I was talking about how I saw your post.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I don't see how it can end up pleasing and it certainly won't be for the people that voted for Trump. If/when this happens, it will piss of a lot of people that thought the whole thing was corrupt to begin with and this will just confirm it for them. They will see it as a very serious threat, if not an end, to what they thought was their only chance to get their country back. As I have said, this could get very messy. People need to forget about what Trump is and remember that a lot of the people that are voting for him are not voting for Trump but rather that he is the only one that does not seem to them to be part of a corrupt system.    

The notion of Trump not being "part of a corrupt system" is one of the most sadly hilarious parts of this whole election.  He's been playing the system of winning public subsidies for his private developments for decades, and is now trading on putting his name all over things that were built partially with taxpayer dollars to run for the White House.  How exactly that is an emblem of purity is beyond me, but millions of my fellow citizens are buying it.

 

I would never have been able to predict any bit of the way this election has gone, but at this point, assuming (as seems almost certain) that Trump goes into the convention with the most delegates but well short of a majority, I see these as possible outcomes, in decreasing order of probability:

 

- Trump plays hardball and manages to convince enough unpledged or lower candidate delegates to vote for him on the second or third ballot.  He has some kind of detente with other high-ranking elected Republicans and party officials, and they all manage to smile while on stage at the same time.  Probably the most likely, but in this case conservative activists and moderate "civility" Republicans either privately or very publicly break with the party in despair.

 

- The GOP takes Trump into a back room and strokes his ego for days until they convince him that he has to step aside and endorse someone else (possibly Cruz, Kasich, Walker, or Ryan).  He gives a big speech about that candidate being "the greatest, trust me, I know."  The party, partially mended, limps along.

 

- Trump turns the ego-driven rhetoric up to 11 and basically strong-arms the GOP into nominating him.  The party breaks apart at the seams, with at least three different factions blaming each other for it.

 

- After a floor fight (possibly including limited outbreaks of actual physical violence), the #NeverTrump faction comes together to deny him the nomination.  Howls of outrage and protest and assertions of fascism and communism and comparisons to Pharaoh and tear-streaked red-white-and-blue facepaint give scenes to top the 1968 Democratic Convention.  All Democrats starts planning our Clinton inauguration parties early.

 

Actually, come to think of it, the most likely scenario is probably:

 

- Something nobody has yet managed to dream up, because this election is so wacky.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Should've just waited until you posted UA. Wouldn't have bothered with my half arsed reply then, compared you yours.

 

 

Oh, come now, this thread is going to get awfully dull if it's just me droning on all the time.

 

 

Mate, your lot make our lot look like paragons of virtue, almost.

 

I dunno, yours haven't managed to start quite as many wars as ours have.

[niblick1874]

How do you know how they'll take it? You talking anarchy, fighting, intimidation, verbal abuse and assaults? 

 

Like his rallies to date?                                                                                                                                        

 

Women, Hispanics, Muslims and immigrants will take it quite well I'd guess mate.                                            

 

That leaves the rest to vote for Hilary, probably, in the Big One.                                                                         

 

To show Ted and his cronies how corrupt the whole Democratic process was, while in full view of the worlds media, and Trump's subsequent rhetoric along with it.

 

I know because I have been paying attention. You? The rest. What was that?

 

edit. That was a good post UA but I see the whole thing a tad contrived. (not your post)

Edited April 7, 2016 by niblick1874

[aussieh]

See Mexico, do they possess much of an armed forces.

Just the way trump goes on about them, they might need it.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I know because I have been paying attention. You? The rest. What was that?

 

edit. That was a good post UA but I see the whole thing a tad contrived. (not your post)

 

Just who do you think is doing the contriving?  The Illuminati?  Who are the malefactors behind the curtain here?

[Stephen Muddie]

So deep man.

 

I think we're past the 'democracy' argument. I don't think anyone is under any illusions about how similar the Democrats and Republican are in real terms. This thread is more about what the eventualities are likely to be, and a little bit of why things might end up the way they end up.

Ok. The eventuality is likely to be that Hillary Clinton wins because it's set up that way, with Trump as the incredible alternative.

 

They'll end up the way they end up because people believe in lies

 

No outcome will change 1. US foreign policy 2. Fiscal policy 3. Continued invasive law enforcement policies or 4. The lives of working Americans

Edited April 7, 2016 by Stephen Muddie

[Ian Beale]

Ok. The eventuality is likely to be that Hillary Clinton wins because it's set up that way, with Trump as the incredible alternative.

 

They'll end up the way they end up because people believe in lies

 

No outcome will change 1. US foreign policy 2. Fiscal policy 3. Continued invasive law enforcement policies or 4. The lives of working AmericansI people

With all the constant bullshit people are being fed

 

 how are they meant to know the difference between lies and the truth ??

[Stephen Muddie]

With all the constant bullshit people are being fed

 

 how are they meant to know the difference between lies and the truth ??

Get back to the fryer, squealey.

 

All you need to know is that votes don't matter. The Market dictates

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Ok. The eventuality is likely to be that Hillary Clinton wins because it's set up that way, with Trump as the incredible alternative.

 

They'll end up the way they end up because people believe in lies

 

No outcome will change 1. US foreign policy 2. Fiscal policy 3. Continued invasive law enforcement policies or 4. The lives of working Americans

 

"It's set up that way."  Again, who is setting it up this way?  

 

"The Market" dictates.  You do realize that The Market isn't a person or an AI or even an organization, right?  It's the expression of the collected interests of consumers, producers, and investors, with it heavily skewed towards those with the most wealth.  So when you say "the market" dictates, you're perpetuating a myth constructed by those who want to present it at a value-neutral thing that isn't anywhere, when in fact it's a heavy expression of the kinds of people that Mossack Fonseca calls clients.  So if you want to help put an end to this BS, you can stop reifying the categories that entrenched interests use to mask their power grabs.

 

FiveThirtyEight has done some good work on the "rigged system" meme: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/

 

One of the most enraging things in US politics was the assertion of Nader and his supporters in 2000 that there was no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.  The difference, if nothing else at all, was the Iraq War, which has spent $1.7 trillion, killed a million people, and destabilized an entire region on a trumped-up excuse for appropriation of Iraqi oil reserves.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

So Sanders seems to be winning everything in sight but Clinton nomination still being talked about like it's an inevitability. How is that? And what are super delegates and do they actually make the process as rigged as it appears?

[BigC]

So Sanders seems to be winning everything in sight but Clinton nomination still being talked about like it's an inevitability. How is that? And what are super delegates and do they actually make the process as rigged as it appears?

 

She has a lead in the delegate count and is massive favourite in the big states with lots of delegates that are still to vote.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

So Sanders seems to be winning everything in sight but Clinton nomination still being talked about like it's an inevitability. How is that? And what are super delegates and do they actually make the process as rigged as it appears?

First of all, Hillary has received about 2.4 million votes more than Bernie so far. So she has a big lead in the popular vote, plus she is over 200 delegates ahead (and that's not counting super delegates, where she has a massive lead, although super delegates could technically still switch sides - something that Bernie is counting on but that's unlikely to happen to a significant degree save some major scandal along the way).

 

The 'momentum' thing is overblown. It helps Bernie's narrative about being a serious contender but the numbers just aren't there for him. Sanders has been winning in states that have favorable demographics for him - namely, where the primary / caucus voters are mainly white and very liberal. He also does better in states where people who aren't registered Democrats can vote. But the states he is winning are generally small without many delegates (Wisconsin being an exception). Also, all Democratic primaries award delegates proportionately (at least to some degree), so it's not like Bernie walks away with all the delegates if he wins a state.

 

Hillary does much better with blacks and Hispanics, and in 'closed' primaries - where only registered Democrats can vote - and upcoming races will be more favorable to her based on demographics. And it's not like she has to win by massive margins - she's just got to stop losing. New York could be close - Hillary is very popular there and represented the state in the Senate for quite a few years, and has her campaign headquarters there, and Bernie was born in Brooklyn. I'm predicting a narrow victory for Hillary in New York, but no way would I put money on it!

 

Super delegates are basically a way for the Democratic Party establishment to exercise some control over the nomination as most super delegates are governors, representatives, senators or party officials. So would not call the process rigged, but it definitely favours Democratic establishment candidates. Remember that Bernie only recently self-identified as a Democrat.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

Good answers, guys. Thanks.

[niblick1874]

Just who do you think is doing the contriving?  The Illuminati?  Who are the malefactors behind the curtain here?

You can start by looking at who are really behind the backers of Cruz and Clinton, because they are not only their backers, they are their masters. They are the ones that dictate everything while getting their way every time and in every way.

 

They are not the only ones with control over things that they should be nowhere near and are doing things with that power that are despicable to say the least.

 

That is the reality of what Clinton (and Cruz) is. Calling her a traitor to the American people and the rest of the world is putting it mildly.

 

All the political rhetoric in the world will not change this and is a complete and purposeful distraction.

 

That was the river, this is the sea.

 

How some can't see this is beyond me

[Watt-Zeefuik]

You can start by looking at who are really behind the backers of Cruz and Clinton, because they are not only their backers, they are their masters. They are the ones that dictate everything while getting their way every time and in every way.

 

They are not the only ones with control over things that they should be nowhere near and are doing things with that power that are despicable to say the least.

 

That is the reality of what Clinton (and Cruz) is. Calling her a traitor to the American people and the rest of the world is putting it mildly.

 

All the political rhetoric in the world will not change this and is a complete and purposeful distraction.

 

That was the river, this is the sea.

 

How some can't see this is beyond me

 

Okay, good.  We've taken one small step towards something empirical rather than nonsense posturing here.  

 

These are Clinton's major financial backers:

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

 

These are Cruz's major financial backers:

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00033085&type=I

 

Notice how there's almost no overlap between them? (aside from the quite notable exception of Goldman Sachs, which in the case of Clinton will have donated less than 1% of her total fundraising)

 

So when you talk about this being "contrived" between them, you suggest that the financial backers are putting on a "Kane vs. Kodos" election, where the same people will be in charge either way.  Except while clearly Wall St. will force itself into the room one way or another, Ted Cruz is largely funded by the hyper-neo-liberal and objectivist Club for Growth, and Clinton is largely funded by groups like Emily's List, which was established to promote female candidates for office, promote legislation designed to address the gender pay gap, and to support abortion rights.  In other words, by "looking at who are really behind the backers of Cruz and Clinton," one sees exactly the divide in ideology for governing the country that one would expect given their public statements.

 

I'm sure you'll follow this up by saying, "ah, but those are just front groups."  At which point I would ask whom exactly they are fronts for, and what evidence you can muster to demonstrate that the Club for Growth and Emily's List have ever once been in cahoots with each other or anything but fierce ideological opponents.

 

So all your talk about "treason" and other nonsense is little more than you being uncomfortable with politics being dirty.  Politics are dirty, and always have been, and always will be.  The kitchen is a hot place -- if you dislike it, be elsewhere.

[niblick1874]

Okay, good.  We've taken one small step towards something empirical rather than nonsense posturing here.  

 

These are Clinton's major financial backers:

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

 

These are Cruz's major financial backers:

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00033085&type=I

 

Notice how there's almost no overlap between them? (aside from the quite notable exception of Goldman Sachs, which in the case of Clinton will have donated less than 1% of her total fundraising)

 

So when you talk about this being "contrived" between them, you suggest that the financial backers are putting on a "Kane vs. Kodos" election, where the same people will be in charge either way.  Except while clearly Wall St. will force itself into the room one way or another, Ted Cruz is largely funded by the hyper-neo-liberal and objectivist Club for Growth, and Clinton is largely funded by groups like Emily's List, which was established to promote female candidates for office, promote legislation designed to address the gender pay gap, and to support abortion rights.  In other words, by "looking at who are really behind the backers of Cruz and Clinton," one sees exactly the divide in ideology for governing the country that one would expect given their public statements.

 

I'm sure you'll follow this up by saying, "ah, but those are just front groups."  At which point I would ask whom exactly they are fronts for, and what evidence you can muster to demonstrate that the Club for Growth and Emily's List have ever once been in cahoots with each other or anything but fierce ideological opponents.

 

So all your talk about "treason" and other nonsense is little more than you being uncomfortable with politics being dirty.  Politics are dirty, and always have been, and always will be.  The kitchen is a hot place -- if you dislike it, be elsewhere.

Clinton backers=21st Century Fox, Time Warner, Goldman Sachs, PJ Morgan chase & co, Morgan Stanly, so on and so forth. who are you trying to fool? 

[Stephen Muddie]

Clinton backers=21st Century Fox, Time Warner, Goldman Sachs, PJ Morgan chase & co, Morgan Stanly, so on and so forth. who are you trying to fool? 

Himself I guess. Not worth it man. He'll confuse these corps as being under rather than above governments, mere backers of an election drive (LOL). He believes in politics yet he believes all politicians lie and that's just what happens... That's an oxymoron right there. Another is believing in democracy amidst the scene of governments being under corporations. Call that what it is or forever haud yer wheest.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Clinton backers=21st Century Fox, Time Warner, Goldman Sachs, PJ Morgan chase & co, Morgan Stanly, so on and so forth. who are you trying to fool? 

 

No one, I gave you the link.

 

Note that the only one in common with Cruz is GS.

 

Clinton was Senator from New York, where Wall St. is, and I'm supposed to be shocked that Wall St. banks are some of her biggest contributors?  Again, you think you're holding some deep dark secret that everyone is ignoring, and again it's something that's so commonly known in the US that it's not worth discussing other than in passing.

 

The Dunning-Kruger is strong with these two...

[Stephen Muddie]

 

The Dunning-Kruger is strong with these two...

I like you generally as a poster but as you've deliberately missed the point and believe in your dream a little too much, then have went into stereotypical attack mode, I don't think we can be friends 

 

I know what DKe is and I've found that's what desperate people say when simple facts are a little too simple for their over-complicated ways of thinking. Usually when I'm being accused of acting superior (I am big on equality actually ) it's because people feel inferior. Not saying that's the case here, but please spare me this bullshit.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie