2016 Primaries and Caucuses Thread

[pr0xyt0xin]

Right, but the same polls show Sanders beating him by a larger margin.

She doesnt even beat Cruz in all the polls. So....

 

[TheBat812]

His chances are zero because the democratic leadeeship will not support him. The superdelegates will not support him. I dont understand why this is so hard for some to grasp. In the case of Bernie its not about delegates so much as its about swaying the leadership and superdelegates. He is a socialist independent that is barely scraping by. Why in the hell would the leadership ever support a socialist independent that is only just scraping by? Why the hell would they want to put such an underperformer up against Trump when they have Hillary who is an actual Democrat and performing much better in the polls?

Like it or not they are going to pick Hillary. At this point its just silly and naive to believe otherwise.

The superdelegates have literally NEVER swung the nomination away from the pledged delegates winner. If they did in this case, it would pretty be confirmation of everything Bernie has been saying about the establishment. For the record, I think the Republican party also should have to just deal with their voted nominee, even if it is a horrible person like Trump.

 

[Marvolo]

Right, but the same polls show Sanders beating him by a larger margin.

She doesnt even beat Cruz in all the polls. So....

No politician is going to win in every single poll. Its just not possible. Besides, Cruz is not going to be the GOP candidate so he is a non factor, and even if he were, in March, he has only beat her in 1 poll on Fox and tied her in one poll on CNN

You said "I hope you dont mean performing better in the polls v Drumpf. Because that's just not true."

She is in fact beating Trump consistently in the polls.

And I didnt say Sander couldnt beat Trump. He probably could. A dirty gym sock could beat Trump in a general election, and do it with more class too. But the leadership isnt going to pick the candidate that is performing like Sanders is in the primaries when they have a better candidate that is performing even better.

And Sanders performance against Trump in a poll doesnt get around the issue that he isnt a Democrat.

The superdelegates have literally NEVER swung the nomination away from the pledged delegates winner. If they did in this case, it would pretty be confirmation of everything Bernie has been saying about the establishment. For the record, I think the Republican party also should have to just deal with their voted nominee, even if it is a horrible person like Trump.

Confirmation that the Democratic party can pick who they want to. Yeah just like the Republican Party can. There is no law saying the two parties have to pick who the people want them to pick. Political parties are private organizations. As such they are free to choose who they want to run in the general election. This isnt corruption or evil. Its common sense and logical. If the people pick an awful candidate or a candidate that doesnt align with the party values they dont have to pick that candidate. And thats how it should be. Even pledged state delegates arent bound by law to vote for the candidate that their district or state chooses.

So no the Republican Party shouldnt have to choose Trump if they dont want to.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

No politician is going to win in every single poll. Its just not possible. Besides, Cruz is not going to be the GOP candidate so he is a non factor, and even if he were, in March, he has only beat her in 1 poll on Fox and tied her in one poll on CNN

You said "I hope you dont mean performing better in the polls v Drumpf. Because that's just not true."

She is in fact beating Drumpf consistently in the polls.

And I didnt say Sander couldnt beat Drumpf. He probably could. A dirty gym sock could beat Drumpf in a general election, and do it with more class too. But the leadership isnt going to pick the candidate that is performing like Sanders is in the primaries when they have a better candidate that is performing even better.

And Sanders performance against Drumpf in a poll doesnt get around the issue that he isnt a Democrat.

No but you said, "Why the hell would they want to put [Sanders] up against Drumpf when they have Hillary who is an actual Democrat and performing much better in the polls?"

So the answer to your question is that he's doing better in the polls against Drumpf than Hillary is.

And if by "an actual democrat" you mean "one who can be bent to their will," rather than just the will of the people well I guess you got me there.

 

[Marvolo]

No but you said, "Why the hell would they want to put [Sanders] up against Drumpf when they have Hillary who is an actual Democrat and performing much better in the polls?"

So the answer to your question is that he's doing better in the polls against Drumpf than Hillary is.

And if by "an actual democrat" you mean "one who can be bent to their will," rather than just the will of the people well I guess you got me there.

But not well enough in the primaries to sway them. If he was destroying Trump in the polls it might would be enough to get the party to ignore his performance in the primaries, and his more "radical" ideals but he isnt doing well enough in the primaries and he isnt performing spectacularly against Trump. He is doing better than Hillary against Trump but not so much better that his poor primary performance can be ignored.

And its not just about the election. Its about the next four years. The Party is considering how much Bernie can realistically get done and how much of the Democrat Party's own goals and agendas will Bernie be able to or be willing to accomplish over the next four years.

As for your last paragragh, if you were running a private organization who would you promote? The person that most agrees with your business goals and strategies or the rebel that wants to stir up trouble and reorganize the organization from the top down?

 

[TheBat812]

No politician is going to win in every single poll. Its just not possible. Besides, Cruz is not going to be the GOP candidate so he is a non factor, and even if he were, in March, he has only beat her in 1 poll on Fox and tied her in one poll on CNN

You said "I hope you dont mean performing better in the polls v Drumpf. Because that's just not true."

She is in fact beating Trump consistently in the polls.

And I didnt say Sander couldnt beat Trump. He probably could. A dirty gym sock could beat Trump in a general election, and do it with more class too. But the leadership isnt going to pick the candidate that is performing like Sanders is in the primaries when they have a better candidate that is performing even better.

And Sanders performance against Trump in a poll doesnt get around the issue that he isnt a Democrat.




Confirmation that the Democratic party can pick who they want to. Yeah just like the Republican Party can. There is no law saying the two parties have to pick who the people want them to pick. Political parties are private organizations. As such they are free to choose who they want to run in the general election. This isnt corruption or evil. Its common sense and logical. If the people pick an awful candidate or a candidate that doesnt align with the party values they dont have to pick that candidate. And thats how it should be. Even pledged state delegates arent bound by law to vote for the candidate that their district or state chooses.

So no the Republican Party shouldnt have to choose Trump if they dont want to.

See above - the Superdelegates have literally never done it.

I never said it was evil, but um... what? If Republican voters vote for Trump, they WILL have to have Trump if he gets enough to take it. They can't block it, it would be shameful and go against pretty much everything democracy is, and would absolutely confirm that our system of government has fallen apart. Same would go for Democrats. The parties are ruled by the people. They use their power in the media and other ways to sway the public, but I've literally heard nobody assert that the parties can do whatever they want, regardless of the voting outcome. It's never happened that way in the USA. The general election works a bit differently, with the electoral college and all that, but for primaries, it really is a people's vote kind of thing. They can't willy nilly say, "nah, we don't want that". I mean, I could be wrong, maybe there's a precedent for this, but I haven't heard of any. That would be the kind of thing we demonize when it happens in other countries.

How horribly ironic it would be if the Democrats chose not to allow the nomination chosen by democracy.....

 

[SV Fan]

Right, but the same polls show Sanders beating him by a larger margin.

She doesnt even beat Cruz in all the polls. So....

The main problem trying to use polls in March for elections in November as a basis to how well a candidate will do is many people who are lesser known might have a bigger advantage or disadvantage. In this case I would say they have a bigger advantage against your Trumps and Clintons because of how unfavorable both those candidates are, but once a campaign goes on an all out attack on whoever they face the person they are up against favorable numbers will most likely drop

By the way other then 1 poll Clinton is beating Cruz

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

It seems like Cruz actually out polled her a couple months ago but it seems like the more people get to know Cruz, the better Clinton does. I can only imagine how much Cruz favorables will drop once the Clinton campaign team goes on an all out attack of his record

 

[souvlaki]

Yeah, the poll argument is dumb to have in March. Clinton's numbers are worse because Sanders has less name recognition and basically all of Clinton's dirty secrets have been in the public eye for 20 years now. Sanders really hasnt been thoroughly vetted by the media yet (certainly not to the extant Obama was in 2008). Throw him in the general and increase the spotlight on him and his favorability ratings will go down and his head to head matchups eill tighten. Its the way politics and polling works.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Yeah, the poll argument is dumb to have in March. Clinton's numbers are worse because Sanders has less name recognition and basically all of Clinton's dirty secrets have been in the public eye for 20 years now.

No one not even Bernie has attacked her on her championing the ouster of Qaddafi in Libya, and it's fallout or her support of the military Coup in Honduras if it's Trump vs Hillary he can bury her with her history of supporting or championing disastrous upheavals around the world while he will have already pivoted away from much of the untenable rhetoric of the primary

 

[Kelly]

Polls this early out are ridiculously stupid, polls during the actual Presidential campaign, are not much better. The polls the 2 days leading up to the 2012 election were for the most part....WRONG. Pollsters HAVE NOT caught up with technology, until they do, poll watching is not the way to go.

 

[Kelly]

Once the delegates get to the convention, they are free to vote as they wish...most of the time they will go with the flow, because they want to continue to be a delegate...in the case of Trump, who knows, the Republican convention is going to be a blast to watch. IF Trump gets ousted and they go with Cruz, or possibly even Kasich, then Trump WILL GO 3RD PARTY, AND HILARY WILL WIN.

 

[SV Fan]

Looks like they called Alaska for Sanders and while it hasn't been called Bernie looks on his way to win Washington(with 14% counted he leads with 77%)

ETA: looks like they just called Washington for Bernie

 

[Kelly]

He will have a nice speaking spot at the DNC....

 

[hippie_hunter]

Once the delegates get to the convention, they are free to vote as they wish...most of the time they will go with the flow, because they want to continue to be a delegate...in the case of Trump, who knows, the Republican convention is going to be a blast to watch. IF Trump gets ousted and they go with Cruz, or possibly even Kasich, then Trump WILL GO 3RD PARTY, AND HILARY WILL WIN.

It's too late for Trump to go third party. Too many states have sore loser laws to prevent things like that.

 

[Victarion]

Hilary's victory is probably a forgone conclusin.

 

[SV Fan]

It's too late for Trump to go third party. Too many states have sore loser laws to prevent things like that.

Trump can just say, if you are pissed at the republican party just write my name on a ballot

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Trump can just say, if you are pissed at the republican party just write my name on a ballot

It would work too.

His followers would follow him off a cliff.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Bernie won today.
Alaska 81 - 18
Hawaii 71 - 29
Washington 73 - 27

 

[Kelly]

A little surprised at the difference in Alaska, but Hawaii and Washington are on the extreme side of Liberal, so those don't surprise me a bit.

He may actually get to give a "Nomination Night" speech at the Dems National Convention, they would be idiots if they didn't give him a prime time spot.

 

[Kelly]

Trump can just say, if you are pissed at the republican party just write my name on a ballot

And they will, and even his followers could probably spell his name correctly.

 

[souvlaki]

A little surprised at the difference in Alaska, but Hawaii and Washington are on the extreme side of Liberal, so those don't surprise me a bit.

He may actually get to give a "Nomination Night" speech at the Dems National Convention, they would be idiots if they didn't give him a prime time spot.

None of the three wins last night surprised me. The calendar for Clinton is pretty dire until New York. She basically just has to hope Sanders' wins don't change the narrative too much by then but given that MSNBC was running Lockup reruns last night and CNN was marathoning Finding Jesus, while online news sites are running the terror attack as their headline news story right now it's probably safe to say outside people that follow politics regularly (i.e. people on here) no one will even know there was a primary yesterday.

Living in California I keep hearing people talk about how close Sanders is and that he has a chance to win here. It makes me laugh because even assuming he wins here it's probably going to more or less be an even split in delegates. I could easily see a scenario where he won the California primary and lost the nomination on the same night.

Sanders will definitely have a prime speaking spot at the convention, I think that's a foregone conclusion. He's not going to win but Clinton needs his supporters. Same way Clinton was a big part of the 2008 convention.

 

[Kelly]

I wasn't surprised at his win in Alaska, just that there was that much of a difference.

He could win all of the states from this point on and still not have enough delegates....people thinking he can win is "Far Left Denial"

Clinton can stay in her hotel room in every state from this point on and let the Republicans have the headlines....they are her 12th man at the moment.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Polls this early out are ridiculously stupid, polls during the actual Presidential campaign, are not much better. The polls the 2 days leading up to the 2012 election were for the most part....WRONG. Pollsters HAVE NOT caught up with technology, until they do, poll watching is not the way to go.

Didn't Nate Silver get the 2012 election 100% right?

 

[Kelly]

Didn't Nate Silver get the 2012 election 100% right?

Some certainly might have called the winner correctly the night of, but showed a very narrow race, when in reality it wasn't...but far too many of the polls had Romney with a narrow lead, or a far to narrow race with Obama winning within margin of error.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Some certainly might have called the winner correctly the night of, but showed a very narrow race, when in reality it wasn't...but far too many of the polls had Romney with a narrow lead, or a far to narrow race with Obama winning within margin of error.

While I do recall that being true, I'm saying Nate got it down to the correct delegate count and which counties would go which way so much so others especially on the right had dismissed his projections.