|
Post by Moose on Apr 7, 2016 18:44:03 GMT
Is there any way that Sanders can catch up now? A lot of the media seems to think that she has it wrapped up
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 7, 2016 21:29:58 GMT
Theoretically, yes, in practice, no. He needs 57% of the remainder of the votes to win but he only got 56% in Wisconsin and Wisconsin is more favourable than most of the remaining states. So, I think it's goodbye from him.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Apr 7, 2016 21:56:19 GMT
Shame Though Hilary might be better placed to beat either Cruz or Trump.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 7, 2016 22:18:09 GMT
Polls suggest Sanders would have a much better chance at beating either of them.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on Apr 8, 2016 19:22:55 GMT
Shame Though Hilary might be better placed to beat either Cruz or Trump. It's the other way around actually. According to data from many polls, Bernie Sanders has a higher chance of beating both Trump and Cruz in the general elections than Hillary Clinton does. Check the averages at the top: Trump vs. ClintonTrump vs. SandersCruz vs. ClintonCruz vs. Sanders
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on Apr 8, 2016 19:29:19 GMT
Theoretically, yes, in practice, no. He needs 57% of the remainder of the votes to win but he only got 56% in Wisconsin and Wisconsin is more favourable than most of the remaining states. So, I think it's goodbye from him. He also won by more than 70% in several other states, so we can't throw in the towel on him yet. Wisconsin is just one point in the data, and what he needs is to win 57% in the rest of the states on average, not necessarily in every state.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 11, 2016 18:24:30 GMT
I think the coming New York state primary will be pretty telling. It's a tale of two carpetbaggers....Hillabeans was elected to the Senate in New York after Billy 'retired' from the presidency gig. Bernie, on the other hand, is a Brookynite who took himself to the west coast of New England and took advantage of the naivete in the Burlington community to establish a long-term political career. Now, they are back to battle it out for the support of New Yorkers, city and upstate.
Pennsylvania is a bit of a toss-up for me. I'm not sure how it is shaking out. And the rest of New England.
Then...if he does well enough there, then California should be gravy, like my state, Oregon...Bernie is the kind of candidate progressive voters in my state like.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Apr 14, 2016 22:15:12 GMT
It's starting to feel that this is never going to end Maybe it would be better to have a UK style system and simply pick a candidate internally and start campaigning a little bit closer to the time.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 15, 2016 2:36:27 GMT
It's starting to feel that this is never going to end Maybe it would be better to have a UK style system and simply pick a candidate internally and start campaigning a little bit closer to the time. Yes...I would be supportive of such. Six weeks, maximum. Every American presidential election has this exhaustion aspect to it. I've also suggested drawing lots from a pool of qualified candidates.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Apr 15, 2016 17:22:34 GMT
How would the American political system agree of the definition of "qualified" candidates?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 15, 2016 17:52:40 GMT
How would the American political system agree of the definition of "qualified" candidates? Well...There is a constitutional set of requirements. But, as Ted Cruz has shown, even they have ambiguities. Of course, reworking the constitutional language to change the system will ALWAYS entail some kind of definitional challenges. As I understand it, even the placement of punctuation was known to affect the interpretations...such was the whole squabble over ratification and the Bill of Rights at the very beginning. It is still going on. Let the discussions (aka 'squabbles') continue! I don't think 'agree' has much to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Apr 20, 2016 1:08:09 GMT
Yeah the Cruz thing is weird .. it's okay for him to be Canadian?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 20, 2016 9:37:43 GMT
It's looking fairly certain now, it'll be Clinton versus Trump. Sanders loss in New York yesterday was emphatic whilst Trump is looking stronger.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 20, 2016 12:20:17 GMT
It's looking fairly certain now, it'll be Clinton versus Trump. Sanders loss in New York yesterday was emphatic whilst Trump is looking stronger. With the exception that New York looks to be as fucked up as Arizona. Hundreds of thousands of summarily purged voters....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 13:17:49 GMT
I am really just hoping that Trump doesn't make it in the end. Even some of my pupils are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 20, 2016 14:48:00 GMT
Okay...As a Bern Unit denizen, I reluctantly admit this looks bad, even as screwed up as the balloting and registration issues have been. Pennsylvania follows soon, and unless Bernie can administer a devastating counter-punch there, he might as well hang it up, because 'fornia won't even make up those differences.
So...It looks at though it will be Hillabeans versus the Toxic Don. *deep sigh* ...provided, of course, the Repugnant don't nominate some dark horse at the convention.
The question for me at this point is "What will Sanders do with the initiative he has awakened and launched?" There will be the inevitable disappointment and discouragement leading to a return to nonparticipation. But, I'm hoping that a significant enough proportion of those who became involved stay engaged and become issue activists. Extra-party legislator monitoring appeals to me, as well....pushing electorally for alternative candidates in the unstable seats held by unsavory elected officials...at national, state AND local levels. A push for transparency and accountability...yes, I know they claim it exists now, but it needs to be made manifest, rather than just lip service. Finding ways of accomplishing that would be beneficial.
ETA: Watch what the Koch brothers do. A Clinton/Trump face-off is not something they are going to underwrite, so what will they do with their near billion bucks of baksheef?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 20, 2016 15:25:53 GMT
ETA: Watch what the Koch brothers do. A Clinton/Trump face-off is not something they are going to underwrite, so what will they do with their near billion bucks of baksheef? I don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 20, 2016 17:00:29 GMT
ETA: Watch what the Koch brothers do. A Clinton/Trump face-off is not something they are going to underwrite, so what will they do with their near billion bucks of baksheef? I don't understand. The Koch brothers are 'libertarian' in orientation and, earlier in the process, before the primaries had begun and before Donald was even in the races, they noted that they had some $889 million dollars in PAC funds to help 'whoever is the Republican nominee'. They, at the time, were openly supporting Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. They would have willingly bought in to 3ush, or even Rubio. I'm not sure how they feel about Cruz, but they are the major deep pockets for the Tea Party ideologues. If Trump is the nominee, they are not likely to roll their huge bundles of moola out like they'd promised. They've stated as much. I've always wondered whether they'd even offer Hillabeans huge lump sums. I doubt whether it will ever happen, but if it were offered, I'm betting Hillabeans would be sorely tempted. Thing is, their policy objectives are hugely at odds. The Kochs are big underwriters for the crowd of Teabillies passing themselves off as the Repugnant 'Freedom Caucus' in the House of Representatives...the 'close down the government' crowd.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 20, 2016 22:13:48 GMT
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Apr 22, 2016 0:49:47 GMT
I'd fallen out of the loop the last few days. It does not look great. I'd prefer Hilary over Trump, well obviously. What are the chances that he might actually win? (what are the chances that if he did he'd turn round and say 'no thanks, it was all a joke'?)
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 22, 2016 1:50:03 GMT
um...I'm sorry, but we have a long way to go.
I hate that question..."What are the chances that he might actually win?" Remember, our dysfunctional system elected both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. And then it re-elected them.
Remember, election day is the second Tuesday in November. It is now April and neither major party has definitively selected their nominated candidate. There are more primaries and conventions. Much can transpire in the interval. There is even a campaign gambit known as the "October Surprise".
I'm still hoping that the Republican Convention in Cleveland will be an all-out barroom brawl fracas, with lots of hurt feelings, recriminations, accusations, threats, and slander and libel. If so, I'm expecting major multiple schisms. I'm hoping.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 22, 2016 17:23:37 GMT
I'm also seeing what I think is a possible serious schism within Democratic party ranks. Not a big one, but a vocal one which will be stifled if it remains within party ranks. This cohort of progressives has more in common with a large chunk of non-aligned independents....Here in Oregon, we have a struggling political party calling itself "Working Families Party". It is growing, as are the unaffiliated voters like myself. Identification, and consequent registration, with the major political parties is declining. I foresee more multiple party activity, but the two majors will have to be hobbled permanently to break their lock on the polling booths/ballot assembly.
This will require extra-political-party activity. This is not easy in the US. It is possible in my state through a set of processes put in place by the previous 'progressive wave' in the early 20th century. It's called 'Initiative, Referendum, and Recall'. It requires a lot of grassroots participation and it not available in easy use forms in most states. Petitions can get novel items on the ballot, the legislature can refer their work for public approval, and elected officials can be petitioned to be removed by a vote.
In other news, the US Treasury has announced that it will replace the face of male white supremacist huckster patron saint of political patronage (and proponent of aboriginal genocide) with the black female face of a leader of the underground slave escape system on the twenty dollar US bill. Basically a vicious killer with a thief. This is instead of replacing Alexander Hamilton on the the US ten dollar bill, as had been posed last year. This is YUUUUUGE.
Why would such a thing be YUUUUUGE? Well, the twenty dollar bill is the standard basic bill which is dispensed from ATMs. ATMs is where most people these days obtain their pocket cash. Twenty dollar bills have gotten the tag 'Boomer Food Stamps', because older folks, like myself, who have not gone entirely over to plastic card and still use cash, tend to have wallets filled with $20 bills. (And, yes, they are all the same size, but they are introducing new variant denomination colors.)
There's going to be agitation at the monkey house. Lots of poo slinging headed our way.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 22, 2016 19:24:21 GMT
So...I think I stumbled across an answer.
It seems that lots of moola from the Repugnant side is tied up in the long ongoing and acrimonious presidential campaign and the alienated are shuffling their amassed vast sums in to Congressional and local races. Expect more local whackjobs on the ballot. Watch out for elected judicial positions, particularly.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 24, 2016 21:42:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 25, 2016 6:42:51 GMT
KOCH: Well... we would have to believe her actions would be quite different from her rhetoric.
I take that as no, Charles Koch would not support Hillary. The article's headline is false, it's journalistic hyperbole.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 25, 2016 13:54:42 GMT
KOCH: Well... we would have to believe her actions would be quite different from her rhetoric. I take that as no, Charles Koch would not support Hillary. The article's headline is false, it's journalistic hyperbole. Excuse me, Tangent...but what did I assert in my prior post? That I thought their positions on policy too divergent. I pondered on the possibility of Koch money going to Hillabeans and thought it unlikely, but an interesting idea. What surprised me was seeing this: "KARL: So is it possible another Clinton could be better than another Republican— KOCH: It’s possible." That is a stunner....one which I openly speculated and basically dismissed, myself. Sure...Charlie is not convinced that if Hillabeans was bought that she'd stay bought. I don't blame him; I wouldn't invest in such a shaky prospect, either. But neither do I feel particularly sorry for him. And as for her dismissal of 'not taking contributions from those to deny global warming'....I call BULLSHIT. She's in the pocket of the extractive hydrocarbons business...SHE'S PUSHING FRACKING GLOBALLY, FFS!!! Hillabeans is a tool....just an erratic and unreliable one.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 25, 2016 14:17:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on May 17, 2016 20:21:40 GMT
From an article about who Hillabeans might select as a running mate.
Another source notes that both Kaine and Warren represent states with Republican governors, meaning that if they go to serve as VP, their replacement will be from the other party, so picking them for a nothing office like VP is unwise. Removing any adept or progressive Democrat from the Senate seems a bad move at this point.
I think that former cabinet types, like Castro or Perez, would be ideal. And, it would really punch up the Latino vote, which is restless.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on May 17, 2016 20:49:59 GMT
A lot of dems seem to be saying that they will not vote for Hilary. To me, that is wrong. I might prefer to see Sanders as President but I really don't want to see Trump there - for the sake of the entire world, not just the US. People keep going on about 'Bernie's revolution' but no-one seems to be that clear as to what it actually is and the cynic in me thinks that it will amount to nothing at all. I can understand, I suppose, people being reluctant to vote for someone they really don't like just to make sure that someone else they do not like does not get into power. But I do not see how focusing on a mythical 'revolution' which is just not going to happen can ever help.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on May 17, 2016 23:56:08 GMT
First...Let's distinguish 'Democrats', which I think you have attempted to typify as 'dems'. What I hear you saying is that many who are now voting for Sanders as 'Democrats' in 'Democratic primaries' are balking at voting for Clinton in the general election and you find it puzzling.
The first thing you need to know is that lots of those folks voting for Sanders in the Democratic primaries are not Democrats. Like myself, they are unaligned voters who have, for the duration of this primary election season, reregistered as Democrats so that they could vote for Sanders in closed Democratic primaries.
Having done that, they do not feel beholden to vote for some other candidate which the Democratic Party decided to select instead of Sanders because they are loyal Democrats. They're not. They may, instead, vote for some minor party candidate (like Jill Stein of the Green Party) or not vote at all. For my part, I shall reregister after the primary as unaffiliated once again. Such is their right as an American voter....it is a secret ballot. They are democrats, not Democrats.
Lastly, there are those out there who are not convinced that a Trump presidency would be any worse than a Clinton presidency. I personally disagree with such a position, but I can certainly see how somebody might arrive there. I don't trust Hillary Clinton at all...I think she is likely to be just as bellicose as Trump and just as dangerous an inhabitant of the White House, but I maintain the wholly unsupported belief that she has some interests in common with ordinary Americans like myself. That may be delusional.
|
|