US Election 2016, part II

[Zoraptor]

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. 

 

I'd have to disagree that Trump's pitch is in any sense practical, they are indeed gut issues though. He's almost devoid of practicality and almost entirely aspiration/ inspiration, and when questioned on it his stock response is almost always something like "how will it work? It'll work great, and make us all great, that's how it will work!" with optional "oh look at that guy's hat, isn't it great!" at the end. His program, such as it is, is about the most theoretical one I've ever seen in any race in any country that I've paid any attention to.

 

Ron Paul consistently lost to establishment candidates. This time was different as Kasich and Cruz, the last options left, were at very best fall back choices for the establishment. End result may have been less Trump and more JEB or Marco rather than Ron Paul winning, but he'd certainly have had a better chance to get some of the dissatisfaction working in his favour. It all depends on how much Trump's support is about simply sticking it to the establishment/ being perceived as 'honest' (though that's more Bernie's thing) as opposed to how he was anti establishment; being mean to Mexicans and standing up to China or being anti trade deals plus taking on the establishment candidates with no mercy shown. If it's more the former then Paul would have done well with his cut Washington's power type stuff, if the latter then not so much.

 

But in any case the anti establishment GOP candidate won and the anti establishment Democrat- who wasn't even a Democrat a relatively short time ago- got 45% of the elected delegates. Thinking that an alternative anti establishment candidate could do well is certainly reasonable.

[Raithe]

[Guard Dog]

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. 

 

 

 You ALMOST did it. You almost got through an entire post about libertarian ideas without snark. But in the end you just couldn't help it. Oh well...

[Leferd]

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.

 

The Signal and the Noise...

 

Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year...

 

Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data.

• Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400.
• Clinton won  33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory.
• Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes.
• Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%.

[Bartimaeus]

There are definitely a few points in Bernie's favor, including winning more of the typically Democratic states and some of the swing states, but overall, that seems like a pretty weak argument. On what basis are you saying that "Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's losses to Bernie", anyways? From the way I see it, it seems like the complete opposite and is the reason the delegate gap is nearly 400 delegates wide.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The issue with Bernie is that a lot of support comes from independents rather tha democrats. Even with open primaries they would be less likely to vote, and with the utter trainwreck primary voting was it when wouldn't surprise me if quite a few left after 15 minutes. Seriously, it took me over an hour to vote and there were less than 10 people ahead of me. It's horribly mismanaged and needs to be streamlined to not **** over those with jobs.

[Wrath of Dagon]

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.

They can wait till after the election. Don't fool yourself, Garland will vote with the liberals, so it'll make little practical difference. "For the most part the law is the law and there isn't much wiggle room in the interpretation." Are you serious? The left has admitted long ago the law is whatever they want it to be.

 

The issue with Bernie is that a lot of support comes from independents rather tha democrats. Even with open primaries they would be less likely to vote, and with the utter trainwreck primary voting was it when wouldn't surprise me if quite a few left after 15 minutes. Seriously, it took me over an hour to vote and there were less than 10 people ahead of me. It's horribly mismanaged and needs to be streamlined to not **** over those with jobs.

It was a long ballot. It took me almost 15 minutes to go through it.

[Meshugger]

The issue with Bernie is that a lot of support comes from independents rather tha democrats. Even with open primaries they would be less likely to vote, and with the utter trainwreck primary voting was it when wouldn't surprise me if quite a few left after 15 minutes. Seriously, it took me over an hour to vote and there were less than 10 people ahead of me. It's horribly mismanaged and needs to be streamlined to not **** over those with jobs.

 

I don't know how you guys do it in Texas, but how how difficult can it be with going to a polling station, show ID, get a paper ballot, write down the number of your candidate in a booth, drop it in the box and exit?

 

In other news, Trump gets support from Roseanne Barr?

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/06/08/roseanne-barr-trump-hes-saying-order-law-matters/

[Rostere]

Why is it that the US can't manage to hold decent elections? I've voted in four elections but never had to stand in line for a single second. As soon as you read about US elections, it is like if you'r reading about a third-world country.

 

Meanwhile:

 

Exit polls off by 16% compared to California Dem result, 0,07% for Republicans.

 

3 million votes left to count.

 

Clinton has been superb at beating exit polls earlier though. We also don't know how many of the votes left to count are placebo ballots. I heard NPP voters were in many places refused Democratic ballots, even though they are legally entitled to them in California.

[Gfted1]

Why is it that the US can't manage to hold decent elections? I've voted in four elections but never had to stand in line for a single second. As soon as you read about US elections, it is like if you'r reading about a third-world country.

Maybe because the population of California is 4x larger than the entire country of Sweden?

[Guard Dog]

WoD if it looks like Hillary is going to win this thing coupled with the high degree of certainty that Senate will change hands (the fact the GOP is defending more blue state seats than the Democrats red state makes for unfavorable math) Merrick Garland may be the best candidate we can hope for. He's a bit in the mold of Stephen Breyer. A reliable left wing vote to be sure but not a liberty hating fanatic like Kagan, Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens or a few others of recent memory. If Hillary wins and has the Senate Garland will not be the nominee. It will be someone in the Ginsburg mold (Ginsburg was HER idea from the get-go). 

 

Most Supreme Court Decisions don't have far reaching implications because the cases that they hear are usually based on a contention on one narrow point of law. Landmark cases like Kelo v. New London or DC v. Heller are the exception, not the rule.

[Rostere]

 

Why is it that the US can't manage to hold decent elections? I've voted in four elections but never had to stand in line for a single second. As soon as you read about US elections, it is like if you'r reading about a third-world country.

Maybe because the population of California is 4x larger than the entire country of Sweden?

 

 

Ok - I got a solution for you! Draw three magic lines through California, separating it in four pieces. Then conduct elections in each part and add the results together. Should be as simple as in Sweden, right?

 

Seriously, if anything the economics of scale should make elections easier.

[Gfted1]

Ok - I got a solution for you! Draw three magic lines through California, separating it in four pieces. Then conduct elections in each part and add the results together. Should be as simple as in Sweden, right?

 

Seriously, if anything the economics of scale should make elections easier.

K

[Guard Dog]

Why is it that the US can't manage to hold decent elections? I've voted in four elections but never had to stand in line for a single second. As soon as you read about US elections, it is like if you'r reading about a third-world country.

 

Meanwhile:

 

Exit polls off by 16% compared to California Dem result, 0,07% for Republicans.

 

3 million votes left to count.

 

Clinton has been superb at beating exit polls earlier though. We also don't know how many of the votes left to count are placebo ballots. I heard NPP voters were in many places refused Democratic ballots, even though they are legally entitled to them in California.

99.9% of elections in the US are done with little waiting and no problems. What problems there are are often blown out of proportion or made up completely to cast doubt on the process, usually by the losing party.

[Leferd]

Or you can vote by mail if you hate waiting in lines. Some counties (like Santa Clara) even make it mandatory.

[obyknven]

I support Hillary Clinton! 

 

 

[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.

 

The Signal and the Noise...

 

Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year...

 

Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data.

• Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400.
• Clinton won  33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory.
• Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes.
• Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%.

 

 

 

Barti more or less highlighted what I was trying to say: I'm not denying Hillary has more delegates or more votes, merely highlighted that to show that Bernie can indeed make a case for being more electable vs. Trump. In your 33 contests Hillary won, about 5 of those have zero bearing on the general election (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc), 8 were virtual ties that were called in her name but effectively could and would support both candidates equally (that being what I meant by "Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's to Bernie, aka Bernie won by a mile in states like Hawaii but lost by a tiny margin in states like New Mexico, which occurs more frequently than states like NJ where Hillary was the clear winner), and Hillary has far more backing from the South than Bernie does. Sprinkle on top some of the more ridiculous contests such as Nevada and that yes there are absolutely cases of election fraud....? To claim Hillary didn't get more votes would be a bold and brash statement that no one in their right mind should be making, but am I stating that the numbers paint a far more clear-cut victory for Hillary when in reality, a good portion of her victory has rested upon Republican states neither she nor Bernie can hope to win, provinces with no political power in the general election and even historically ugly levels of corrupted voting? Yes, yes I am.

 

 

  My point wasn't to state Bernie is the "true winner" or some fanatical BS like that, but rather that I see definite cause for concern vs. Trump. As I said in my last post, the concerns raised by the Bernie campaign are more than just arguments for why he's more electable; they're things that the Hillary camp absolutely needs to be concious of going into the general election. They're realities. Thusfar, the impression I've gotten is that these concerns are not being taken seriously, and unless they plan on stealing the election or something, yes, they should absolutely be aware of those concerns and not treat them as little more than arguments for Bernie.

[ShadySands]

we vote by mail Here and it's really Awesome. I like it way better than waiting in Lines .

 

Have You ever waited all Day? i haven't. Really glad we have such an Awesome voting system.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

The issue with Bernie is that a lot of support comes from independents rather tha democrats. Even with open primaries they would be less likely to vote, and with the utter trainwreck primary voting was it when wouldn't surprise me if quite a few left after 15 minutes. Seriously, it took me over an hour to vote and there were less than 10 people ahead of me. It's horribly mismanaged and needs to be streamlined to not **** over those with jobs.

 

 

I don't know how you guys do it in Texas, but how how difficult can it be with going to a polling station, show ID, get a paper ballot, write down the number of your candidate in a booth, drop it in the box and exit?

There were machines. Only six of them, and they were slow because you had a circular thing to scroll with that didn't work very fast. A good number of the candidates were running unopposed so it was a bitch to scroll through. Then there was the staff, they were looking up names in a book and it took then a while for most. It's inefficient as hell and probably would be better served with a drop ballot or something. I was lucky to have free time, if I had to work that day I probably wouldn't have been able to cast by vote. I drove by it after hitting a liquor store and the line had spilled off to block one lane of the street.

[kirottu]

we vote by mail Here and it's really Awesome. I like it way better than waiting in Lines .

 

Have You ever waited all Day? i haven't. Really glad we have such an Awesome voting system.

Did you get drunk to vote? It is the only way to democracy properly.

[Bartimaeus]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/09/hillary_clinton_sanders_brought_passion_but_hasnt_gotten_me_to_move_on_any_policies.html

 

uniting the party

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/09/hillary_clinton_sanders_brought_passion_but_hasnt_gotten_me_to_move_on_any_policies.html

 

uniting the party

That's gonna go over real well with those whose problems were her policies.

 

[ShadySands]

Did anyone actually expect her to adopt any of Bernie's policies or positions?

[Malcador]

Reddit is even more fun to read this week.

[Longknife]

No, but it's rather mind-boggling to watch this all unfold.

Trump could not make it any more obvious he's completely in over his head and by no means qualified to be president, whereas Hillary may as well be openly taunting anyone that opposes her while wearing god damned corporate logos instead of American flags.