Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

2016 Primaries and political debates

Election Primaries 2016

  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#61 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 07 March 2016 - 10:57 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 07 March 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

One thing that's confusing me is the difference in the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. On the Democratic side it's over 2,000. While on the Republican side it's like 1,283. Why the difference in needed delegates? Shouldn't the numbers be the same?

No.  Each party has a different nominating process.  It's actually pretty much the biggest misunderstood process in both political parties.  In any event, the numbers are different because the delegates awarded are different in given state.  That and superdelegates are a different # in each Party as well.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#62 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 07 March 2016 - 11:03 PM

Both parties require candidates to win 50%+1 to win the nomination, it's just that Democrats have about twice the number of delegates. 4051 pledged delegates and 714 superdelegates. Republicans have 2472 delegates, about 95% of which are pledged and the remaining are "unbound," meaning they can act as superdelegates. The GOP claims it will require those unbound delegates to vote with their states this time but I'm guessing that will change if they can be used to block Trump from winning. They're really starting to panic about him now.

At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump

Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute's annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering.
The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he "cannot support Donald Trump."

Along with Ryan, the House was represented by Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.), Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas) and almost-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), sources said, along with leadership figure Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Diane Black (Tenn.).
Philip Anschutz, the billionaire GOP donor whose company owns a stake in Sea Island, was also there, along with Democratic Rep. John Delaney, who represents Maryland. Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, was there, too, a Times spokeswoman confirmed. A Politico spokesman refused to say whether publisher Robert Allbritton attended.

Edited by cade, 07 March 2016 - 11:05 PM.


#63 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 08 March 2016 - 12:56 PM

Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours

In what has to be some kind of record, the Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours, between roughly 10:20 PM EST Sunday, March 6, to 3:54 PM EST Monday, March 7—a window that includes the crucial Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, and the next morning’s spin: All of these posts paint his candidacy in a negative light, mainly by advancing the narrative that he’s a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women. Even the one article about Sanders beating Trump implies this is somehow a surprise—despite the fact that Sanders consistently out-polls Hillary Clinton against the New York businessman.

There were two posts in this time frame that one could consider neutral: “These Academics Say Bernie Sanders’ College Plan Will Be a Boon for African-American Students, Will It?” and “Democratic Debate: Clinton, Sanders Spar Over Fracking, Gun Control, Trade and Jobs.” None could be read as positive.

While the headlines don’t necessarily reflect all the nuances of the text, as I’ve noted before, only 40 percent of the public reads past the headlines, so how a story is labeled is just as important, if not more so, than the substance of the story itself.

#64 G-man

G-man

    Is there a problem?

  • Moderator
  • 8,877 posts

Posted 08 March 2016 - 06:40 PM

Well, it's not surprising.  The Post has pretty much toed the estabishment line for decades.

Now, the question is, if Hillary is brought up on criminal charges for sending classified communications over her private server, will they turn around and back Sanders against Trump.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself
Let me strive every moment of my life to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, so that all may profit by it.
Let me think of the right and lend my assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice.
Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.
Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens, and my associates in everything I say and do.
Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.
-- Doc Savage

Few people want to be moderated, most people see the need for everyone else to be moderated. -- Orpheus

#65 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 08 March 2016 - 10:24 PM

View PostG-man, on 08 March 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:


Now, the question is, if Hillary is brought up on criminal charges for sending classified communications over her private server, will they turn around and back Sanders against Trump.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself

I have no doubt that the FBI will recomment an indictment, but I just can't see the Attorney General pressing charges against Hillary. Despite what the FBI recommends, the AG will play politics with this case, and bringing charges against Hillary will ruin ANY future career she might hope to have.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#66 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 08 March 2016 - 11:43 PM

Hillary hasn't broken any laws, period!  It's been said many times and people just seem to go right past and continue to treat her like she's committed a crime.  They won't bring charges because there is no crime.  Hillary Clinton is on a long list of folks who opted for a private server, a long list of Secretary's of State.  None of the emails NONE were "classified" at the time some MAY be now for whatever arbitrary reason.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#67 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 01:27 AM

View PostBalderdash, on 08 March 2016 - 11:43 PM, said:

Hillary hasn't broken any laws, period!  It's been said many times and people just seem to go right past and continue to treat her like she's committed a crime.  They won't bring charges because there is no crime.  Hillary Clinton is on a long list of folks who opted for a private server, a long list of Secretary's of State.  None of the emails NONE were "classified" at the time some MAY be now for whatever arbitrary reason.

This.

Republicans are frothing at the bit because they think there is an indictment coming.  There isn't.  Colin Powell himself came out and said he'd used private email as well.  Baldy is right, there is a long list of people who have done the same as Clinton.  Too many people just want her to be a criminal.  They have since she began her public service.  She won't be indited.  I doubt she is even under investigation any longer.  But, don't let that stop you from hoping and wishing.

I think it is the GOP wet dream.  Clinton gets indited, and Democrats are scrambling to get a candidate--any candidate.  The GOP wins by some sort of default.  Which is quite likely the only way they can win the WH with the current bunch of candidates.  They'd have to be the only ones running.

Even with the above scenario, if Clinton weren't running, Biden would step in and Democrats would be happy as clams.  But, that's not going to happen.  Get used to it.  Hillary Clinton is running and she isn't going to be indited.  Sorry to pour cold water over that fantasy.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#68 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,036 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 09:01 AM

In other news, Bernie unexpectedly kicked Hillary's ass in Michigan. Complete upset, defying every poll taken in the state.

Also, Ben Carson apparently dropped out five days ago and I totally didn't notice. Did anyone?

Edited by Omega, 09 March 2016 - 09:03 AM.


#69 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 09:21 AM

View PostBalderdash, on 08 March 2016 - 11:43 PM, said:

Hillary hasn't broken any laws, period!  It's been said many times and people just seem to go right past and continue to treat her like she's committed a crime.  They won't bring charges because there is no crime.  Hillary Clinton is on a long list of folks who opted for a private server, a long list of Secretary's of State.  None of the emails NONE were "classified" at the time some MAY be now for whatever arbitrary reason.

Keep telling yourself that. And you people think I'm being lied to when it comes to Obama. Unless, of course, keeping classified material on a private server outside of Goverment safeguards and control is now, all of a sudden, out of the blue, legal???? And as for her "Never sent classified material" that's already been proven a lie. Not all of the emails were classified retroactively. And some of the emails were top secret, which is beyond classified. But, you go right ahead and keep believing the lies Hillary is telling.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#70 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 09:23 AM

View PostCait, on 09 March 2016 - 01:27 AM, said:


Even with the above scenario, if Clinton weren't running, Biden would step in and Democrats would be happy as clams.  But, that's not going to happen.  Get used to it.  Hillary Clinton is running and she isn't going to be indited.  Sorry to pour cold water over that fantasy.

I'm sure Nixon felt the same way, that there would be no way he'd be forced to resign.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#71 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,036 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 09:32 AM

Just to inject some fact into the discussion:
https://en.wikipedia...ation_in_emails

As I read things, Clinton using a private server was not illegal, but was not consistent with standard procedures. From my perspective, it was was unforgivably technologically ignorant of her to think her private server was even slightly secure. And holding her government correspondence where the people can't ever review it is also unacceptable practice.

As for the actual data in the emails, substantial retroactive over-classification has taken place. That says nothing one way or the other about what laws were broken. We'll have to wait for the results of the state department and FBI investigations, because until then, nobody knows what's gone on. Having a firm belief one way or the other is inherently mistaken, because you can't know.

As for my personal biases, I'd almost prefer for Clinton to have committed a crime and be punished for it. Not because I have something against Clinton, but because I'd like to see some evidence that we live in a society where the rich and powerful are still subject to the law. Of course, if she didn't do anything illegal, I don't want her punished, for the same reason.

#72 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 12:23 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 09 March 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

View PostBalderdash, on 08 March 2016 - 11:43 PM, said:

Hillary hasn't broken any laws, period!  It's been said many times and people just seem to go right past and continue to treat her like she's committed a crime.  They won't bring charges because there is no crime.  Hillary Clinton is on a long list of folks who opted for a private server, a long list of Secretary's of State.  None of the emails NONE were "classified" at the time some MAY be now for whatever arbitrary reason.

Keep telling yourself that. And you people think I'm being lied to when it comes to Obama. Unless, of course, keeping classified material on a private server outside of Goverment safeguards and control is now, all of a sudden, out of the blue, legal???? And as for her "Never sent classified material" that's already been proven a lie. Not all of the emails were classified retroactively. And some of the emails were top secret, which is beyond classified. But, you go right ahead and keep believing the lies Hillary is telling.

LOL  Whatever.  It is legal and not out of the blue.  Too bad you won't/can't educate yourself, your biases are too strong to let in any reality.  But I'll keep trying to help when I have the time.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#73 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 12:44 PM

LotS, why do you reserve all of your vitriol on this for Hillary Clinton when the two Secretaries of State who preceded her did exactly what she did - and their servers are under investigation, too. Surely it should be the same rhetoric - and indeed, the same fate - for all three. Right?

So do you expect that Colin Powell and Condi Rice are about to be indicted, too? (This despite the fact that it is NOT a criminal investigation.)

Or is it just that, in your mind, Republicans are allowed to do this thing but a Democrat can't?

Edited by BklnScott, 09 March 2016 - 12:46 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#74 3C273

3C273
  • Islander
  • 353 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 12:49 PM

I still think Clinton and her tech team should be given an award for creating a system that was never hacked.

#75 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 01:41 PM

View PostG-man, on 08 March 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Well, it's not surprising.  The Post has pretty much toed the estabishment line for decades.

Now, the question is, if Hillary is brought up on criminal charges for sending classified communications over her private server, will they turn around and back Sanders against Trump.

I'm not sure how they would react then, except as usual their campaign coverage would focus on personality and the horserace over policy, which heavily benefits Republicans because polls show the public strongly favors Democrats on policy.

To top it off, the Washington Post just put up a positive article about how well Hillary did against Trump in their poll. No mention of Bernie because they once again didn't bother to include him in the poll. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that he's consistently outperformed Hillary in general election polling against Trump.

Edited by cade, 09 March 2016 - 03:21 PM.


#76 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 03:21 PM

A very under-reported aspect of the 2008 Democratic primary race was how much better Obama fared with whites who lived in areas with low minority populations. Exit polls asking people whether race was a factor in their vote also showed far less racial animus against Obama in these areas where minorities were sparse. The exception was Appalachian territory, such as West Virginia, where 21% of voters were whites who said race was a factor in their vote and they voted 84%-9% for Clinton against Obama. (And given the social desirability bias at play, it's highly likely that race was a factor for even more whites than were willing to admit it.)

I bring this up because we are now seeing a strikingly similar trend with Trump voters. I think both of these events are very important pieces of evidence that should be frequently cited against the dedicated, widespread attempts to severely downplay the ongoing existence of racism in this country.

Why Donald Trump Has Done Worse in Mostly White States

Donald Trump has tended to fare worst in states that are mostly white. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t had great success in appealing to white Republican primary voters — there’s no doubt of that — only that he generally does better in states that have higher percentages of nonwhites, particularly African-Americans.

Mr. Trump’s stances on, say, trade and Social Security, can strike a chord with voters. But studies have shown that his bigger appeal is as anauthoritarian voice of the voiceless. Part of that has been rallying people — particularly those who haven’t gone to college — who feel a resentmenttoward racial, ethnic and religious “others.”

As Michael Tesler and John Sides wrote for the Monkey Cage at The Washington Post last week: “Fifty years of research backs this up. Ethnocentric suspicions of minority groups in general, and attitudes about blacks in particular, influence whites’ opinions about many issues.”

Some social science research suggests that the simple fact that President Obama is black might have contributed to a sense of lost power and resentment among whites, and, of course, Mr. Trump first came to political prominence by questioning whether Mr. Obama was even a citizen.

<...>

An interesting variation is found in Appalachian states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which tend to have small black populations but are still fertile ground for Mr. Trump. Racial polarization in voting there is relatively high, and it’s also a region where racially charged web search are more common. In a Gallup poll this week in which residents of every state were asked if their city or area was a good place to live for racial and ethnic minorities, West Virginia finished last.

Edited by cade, 09 March 2016 - 03:23 PM.


#77 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 04:33 PM

Quote

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that he's consistently outperformed Hillary in general election polling against Trump.


I like Bernie a lot and I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination but I hate that talking point. There is no correlation between that polling and how he would actually do against Trump in the general because NONE of the principals believe it will be him so no one is trying to destroy him. (Hillary's trying to gently prevail against him - there's a huge difference.) That would change if he became the frontrunner and the effect on his numbers would be significant. McCaskill was jeered for saying it but she's right that the Republicans are dying to run a hammer & sickle ad against Sanders - and it would be devastatingly effective.

Oh, and I do think that the WaPo's coverage has been ridiculously pro-Hillary. The NYT's coverage has been ridiculously anti-Hillary. There is no such thing as unbiased news coverage, is there? Bias is part of the human condition. We cannot step out of our own consciousness. We can only try... very very hard. :)

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#78 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 05:08 PM

Some interesting analysis on Michigan.

http://www.businessi...rs-panic-2016-3

Quote

Sanders did not win Michigan by enough to be on pace to overtake Clinton in pledged delegates. Last month FiveThirtyEight produced a useful chart of where Sanders needed to win, and by how much, to fight Clinton to a draw.

To win nationally, you have to win your most demographically favorable states by a lot to offset losses in your weak regions. The calculations are fairly simple on the Democratic side because all states award their delegates proportionally.

The FiveThirtyEight calculations showed Sanders needed to win Michigan by 4 points, and he won only by 2. But the news is worse for him than that. He has underperformed his targets in most of the voting states to date. For example, he needed to win Massachusetts by 11 points, and instead he lost by 1. So to make up lost ground he needed to outperform his targets in Michigan (and everywhere else) by a significant margin. He didn't.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#79 cade

cade
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 05:47 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 09 March 2016 - 04:33 PM, said:

Quote

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that he's consistently outperformed Hillary in general election polling against Trump.


I like Bernie a lot and I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination but I hate that talking point. There is no correlation between that polling and how he would actually do against Trump in the general because NONE of the principals believe it will be him so no one is trying to destroy him. (Hillary's trying to gently prevail against him - there's a huge difference.) That would change if he became the frontrunner and the effect on his numbers would be significant. McCaskill was jeered for saying it but she's right that the Republicans are dying to run a hammer & sickle ad against Sanders - and it would be devastatingly effective.

Oh, and I do think that the WaPo's coverage has been ridiculously pro-Hillary. The NYT's coverage has been ridiculously anti-Hillary. There is no such thing as unbiased news coverage, is there? Bias is part of the human condition. We cannot step out of our own consciousness. We can only try... very very hard. :)

I wasn't saying that Bernie is more electable or even that the polls this far out are good evidence that he is. I was just pointing to WaPo's obvious bias in not even including him in the poll, given that he's been outperforming her against Trump in almost every other poll for months. It could be a mirage for the solid reasoning you cite, or it could be that Bernie will mitigate that along the way that since voters seem to like him the more they get to know him and his policies. I don't have a strong opinion either way. Both candidates have major weaknesses and are lucky the GOP is in such disarray. With Bernie against Trump my biggest concern would be his reluctance to engage in personal attacks. While I'd love it if just focusing on the issues worked, Trump needs to be attacked for the conman he is.

Regarding bias in general I completely agree and just wish all reporters would admit to that rather than so many feigning objectivity. Attempting to be objective is of course very good, but many in the establishment media seem more concerned with appearing to be objective, which often leads them to confusing objectivity with neutrality, resorting to false equivalencies so they can call everything 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. CNN specializes in this.

#80 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 March 2016 - 06:01 PM

View Postcade, on 09 March 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

Both candidates have major weaknesses and are lucky the GOP is in such disarray.

Agreed.

Quote

With Bernie against Trump my biggest concern would be his reluctance to engage in personal attacks. While I'd love it if just focusing on the issues worked, Trump needs to be attacked for the conman he is.

Hillary carries brass knuckles.

Quote

Regarding bias in general I completely agree and just wish all reporters would admit to that rather than so many feigning objectivity. Attempting to be objective is of course very good, but many in the establishment media seem more concerned with appearing to be objective, which often leads them to confusing objectivity with neutrality, resorting to false equivalencies so they can call everything 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. CNN specializes in this.

Preach!

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election, Primaries, 2016

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users