US Election 2016, part II

[Meshugger]

 A more detailed map of the democratic primary results:

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

^I never took you for a Nietzschean. How's the nihilism today?

 

empty like your dreams

 

 

 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

But as we all know, life is much more than that.

[Meshugger]

 

^I never took you for a Nietzschean. How's the nihilism today?

 

empty like your dreams

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that my dreams (beauty, truth, solace) are more of your nightmares, but i c wat u did thar, touché.

 

 

But as we all know, life is much more than that.

 

 

I would rather recommend going nightswimming under the full moon in a clear sky at the beach at Galveston, but each to each own.

[Vaeliorin]

A country saving indictment. Ah, dramatics.

More like hyperbole. I just really, really dislike Hillary, and have for about 20 years. She's always seemed entirely a political creature to me, and there's just something about her that I don't trust. I'm not sure she cares about anything but power.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

^I never took you for a Nietzschean. How's the nihilism today?

 

empty like your dreams

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that my dreams (beauty, truth, solace) are more of your nightmares

 

 

*cough* strawman *cough*

[Leferd]

A friendly reminder that Hillary won in California with the following figures:

 

2016

- Clinton 1.8 million votes

- Sanders 1.4 million votes

 

2008

- Clinton 2.6 million votes

- Obama 2.1 million votes

Nationwide results/margin of victory

 

2008

-Obama 18,107,587; 1828 1/2 pledged delegates

-Clinton 18,045,829; 1726 1/2 pledged delegates

 

2016

-Clinton 15,571,643; 2184 pledged delegates

-Sanders 11,888,779; 1804 pledged delegates

 

Looks to me that the margins of victory numbers are pretty self-evident. And these don't include superdelegates.

[Hurlshort]

I think it is a bigger deal now because Clinton already lost to a somewhat unknown young senator when she was the bigger name in 2008.  The fact that she was challenged again by a relatively unknown (albeit with a much longer history) makes for some heavy drama.  It also makes her general election bid seem much more shaky.    

[Longknife]

I think it is a bigger deal now because Clinton already lost to a somewhat unknown young senator when she was the bigger name in 2008.  The fact that she was challenged again by a relatively unknown (albeit with a much longer history) makes for some heavy drama.  It also makes her general election bid seem much more shaky.    

 

This is the thing: the Clinton campaigned has failed to acknowledge multiple issues along the campaign trail.

 

1) Clinton has her lead largely (partially? To a decent degree, is my point) thanks to Southern states that the democrats can never hope to win anyways. Not that much of a biggie, but something to consider. I feel like a lot of the polls gloss over that Clinton is fully capable of winning the popular vote but will still absolutely lose if for example she wins 100% of the vote in New York and Cali, but fails to win ANY swing state.

 

2) Clinton has failed to tackle ANY of the issues regarding her paid speeches or pending indictment charges. Ignoring those issues does not make them go away. At the very least, she NEEDS to be capable of discussing these, because if she can't, Trump has a hidden talent for dominating the flow of a conversation and will not allow the topic to stray from these two points.

 

3) The Bernie supporters and independent voters have no obligation to vote for Hillary "for the good of the democratic party." That is not how this system works, it is delusional to think so. The easiest act come election day is to sit on your ass and do nothing and don't bother voting. It is the responsibility of all candidates involved to convince the people to cast their vote in their favor; the people do NOT have a duty to vote for a candidate in an election where they dislike all of them. To claim this is how the world works is in blatant denial of reality and can absolutely bite her campaign in the ass.

 

4) Related to 3, Clinton has done next to NOTHING to make compromises with the Sanders camp. With yesterday's results, under normal circumstances this would be a time when candidates make little compromises with each other or begin to bargain. Here this isn't happening since for Bernie, an indictment is still plausible and I think he's the type to remain in the race out of principle, but for Hillary...? No idea why she isn't attempting to reach out and speak to Sanders at the bargaining table. Her attitude is more akin to "shutup and get in line" rather than "what can we do to reach a compromise where all democrats are happy?" Hell, Trump has reached out to the Sanders camp more than Hillary has, and that's saying something given that Trump has a rather small campaign staff and isn't all that politically concious. If anything, Clinton has burned bridges with other democratic party members, which is rather problematic for her because she is basically dissuading half her "supporters" (aka democratic voters) from bothering to vote. I know some Sanders supporters that are so disgusted by her that Trump is their Plan B.

 

In short, it feels like the Clinton campaign has been so sure of itself that it'll win vs. Sanders, but it's failed to realize that winning vs Sanders does not negate ANY of the critiques raised by her opponents. That Sanders has chosen to keep quiet about her indictment has been a boon for her campaign; Trump won't do the same. That Sanders supporters raise concerns about her electability vs. Donald Trump is not just an argument for supporting him instead; there's 100% truth to it and she SHOULD be taking measures towards trying to turn that around, which is best done by acknowledging and addressing the biggest critiques of her campaign while reaching compromises with Sanders supporters.

 

But she's failing to do any of that, and honestly it's no wonder that the President of the Worst God Damned Haircut Club may become President of the United States.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Whelp guess the primary ride is over. Looking forward to massive disillusionment and a very unpopular president.

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/

 

Guys what an amazing night, it must be so exciting to be a US citizen and to be part of this historical moment 

 

 

The first female presidential nominee, well done Hilary !!!

   

You should try stand-up.

 

Edit: Is GOPe planning a coup? http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363918.php

Edited June 8, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Meshugger]

 

A friendly reminder that Hillary won in California with the following figures:

 

2016

- Clinton 1.8 million votes

- Sanders 1.4 million votes

 

2008

- Clinton 2.6 million votes

- Obama 2.1 million votes

Nationwide results/margin of victory

 

2008

-Obama 18,107,587; 1828 1/2 pledged delegates

-Clinton 18,045,829; 1726 1/2 pledged delegates

 

2016

-Clinton 15,571,643; 2184 pledged delegates

-Sanders 11,888,779; 1804 pledged delegates

 

Looks to me that the margins of victory numbers are pretty self-evident. And these don't include superdelegates.

 

 

Half of a delegate? Are they superpositioned schrödinger's delegates among the democratic party?

 

 

Whelp guess the primary ride is over. Looking forward to massive disillusionment and a very unpopular president.

 

Who's playing Asuka in this allegory? 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

A friendly reminder that Hillary won in California with the following figures:

2016

- Clinton 1.8 million votes

- Sanders 1.4 million votes

2008

- Clinton 2.6 million votes

- Obama 2.1 million votes

 

Nationwide results/margin of victory

2008

-Obama 18,107,587; 1828 1/2 pledged delegates

-Clinton 18,045,829; 1726 1/2 pledged delegates

2016

-Clinton 15,571,643; 2184 pledged delegates

-Sanders 11,888,779; 1804 pledged delegates

Looks to me that the margins of victory numbers are pretty self-evident. And these don't include superdelegates.

 

Half of a delegate? Are they superpositioned schrödinger's delegates among the democratic party?

 

Whelp guess the primary ride is over. Looking forward to massive disillusionment and a very unpopular president.

 

 

Who's playing Asuka in this allegory?

America.

[HoonDing]

Come to think of it, Putin/Russia as Rei is just perfect.

[Leferd]

 

 

 

A friendly reminder that Hillary won in California with the following figures:

 

2016

- Clinton 1.8 million votes

- Sanders 1.4 million votes

 

2008

- Clinton 2.6 million votes

- Obama 2.1 million votes

Nationwide results/margin of victory

 

2008

-Obama 18,107,587; 1828 1/2 pledged delegates

-Clinton 18,045,829; 1726 1/2 pledged delegates

 

2016

-Clinton 15,571,643; 2184 pledged delegates

-Sanders 11,888,779; 1804 pledged delegates

 

Looks to me that the margins of victory numbers are pretty self-evident. And these don't include superdelegates.

Half of a delegate? Are they superpositioned schrödinger's delegates among the democratic party?

Well... the US Constitution did count a segment of the population as 3/5ths of a person...

[Namutree]

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/

 

Guys what an amazing night, it must be so exciting to be a US citizen and to be part of this historical moment 

 

 

The first female presidential nominee, well done Hilary !!!

   

You should try stand-up.

 

Edit: Is GOPe planning a coup? http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363918.php

 

Nah. They're not that dumb.

[Guard Dog]

I think it is a bigger deal now because Clinton already lost to a somewhat unknown young senator when she was the bigger name in 2008.  The fact that she was challenged again by a relatively unknown (albeit with a much longer history) makes for some heavy drama.  It also makes her general election bid seem much more shaky.    

I think she would be very beatable had the GOP managed to produce one serious, legitimate candidate that 1) had a brain 2) knew how to use it 3) had convictions and stood by them and 4) had not already pissed everyone in the country off. Unfortunately they had no one like that so they nominated Trump.

 

I seriously cannot remember a choice between two more despicable human beings. I Warren Harding were resurrected and ran for a second term I'd rather vote for him.

[Hurlshort]

I agree, this should have been the Republican's year if they went for anyone close to being reasonable.  Mitt Romney could probably pull this off.  

 

Rand Paul probably was the best of the lot.  

 

[Namutree]

I agree, this should have been the Republican's year if they went for anyone close to being reasonable.  Mitt Romney could probably pull this off.  

 

Rand Paul probably was the best of the lot.  

 

Mitt Romney would have been utterly crushed. The absolute last thing the GOP needed was another Bush style republican. All Hillary would have to do is say, "You think the Iraq war was a good idea." Election over, she wins in a landslide. Any candidate that defends that war has ZERO chance to win. 

 

EDIT: Rand Paul was easily the best choice, but he ruined it for himself with a terrible primary and debate strategy. He has no one to blame but himself.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Namutree

[ShadySands]

I dunno

 

She thought it was a good idea at the time too

 

 

PS I just read that the State Department isn't going to release her emails on the TPP until after the election

Edited June 8, 2016 by ShadySands

[Namutree]

I dunno

 

She thought it was a good idea at the time too

 

 

PS I just read that the State Department isn't going to release her emails on the TPP until after the election

Yeah, but she repented. Mitt Romney double downed IIRC.

[Guard Dog]

Rand Paul was my first choice but as Namutree alluded to he sabotaged himself. He is not a traditional Republican and that was his appeal. When he tried to re-invent himself as one he became just another fish in the dirty water.

 

Mitt Romney was a bad idea in 2012, he would be a worse one in 2016. The Republican base may hold their nose and vote for Trump, but they were NOT going to suffer Democrat-Lite. And that is exactly what MR is.

 

I think it might be a good idea for the Senate to reconsider Merrick Garland. I don't like him but he may be the least bad of the alternatives. Seeing the SCOTUS becoming a bastion of leftist thought really terrifies me. More-so than the Executive or Legislature. We'll get an opportunity to throw them out every so often. But Supreme Court justices are in a position to do real and permanent harm to our country. And those who favor the left never come down on the side of the individual when the power or influence of the government is at issue. For the most part the law is the law and there isn't much wiggle room in the interpretation. But is some cases, Kelo vs. New London for example the leftists have shown they are willing to bend it into a pretzel to make the outcome suit their preferences.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Zoraptor]

Ironically, Rand Paul had a decent chance of doing well this cycle imo as the right's Bernie Sanders equivalent- though Sanders was helped by there being no other credible alternative to Clinton while there were too many alternatives to Trump. He chose a very bad nomination to try getting mainstream support since the nominee they got is considerably further from establishment than he was and there was a huge backlash against the establishment he moved towards; one of Sanders big pluses is his consistency and Rand Paul rather blotted his copy book there in a way his father seldom did* by making those concessions. Ron Paul instead of Rand Paul 2016 would have made things very interesting, I suspect.

 

*that I am aware of, at least. I know there was some stuff in newsletters he edited or similar which people tried to get him on

[Enoch]

I think you two are vastly overestimating the potential appeal of Libertarian-lite policies with rank-and-file conservative voters.  Just being non-mainstream isn't what put Trump and Cruz at the head of the pack-- it was being non-mainstream in a way that busts open the coded appeals that mainstream Republicans have made to less-educated voters over the past few decades.  Gut-level issues like national identity as informed by race and religion, with economic-policy appeals that don't extend much beyond "there are fewer jobs than there used to be, and I'll fix that" and "screw China/Mexico."  Their pitch is practical, where the Libertarian-flavored pitch is more theoretical.  Ron Paul supporters sure were committed, but they weren't especially numerous, and the message doesn't resonate very well beyond that core of guys who took 2 college econ classes and think that they therefore know how the entire world works. 

 

That said, I did miss Paul when he left the race.  He did present some diversity of opinion the GOP debate stage, particularly when they got to foreign policy stuff. 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Enoch

[Longknife]

It was pointed out that even in the Democratic primary, Bernie won more states: 22 to Hillary's 20, alongside 8 that were close enough to count as ties. It's also worth noting that Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's losses to Bernie.