I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

trump hasn't really spoken out on any GLBT issues, has he? I can't imagine what he'd say, honestly. Part of me thinks he'd purposefully rile up the base and throw them some nice homophobia but he's so inconsistent and incoherent i could just as easily see him saying he has lots of gay friends and that they're terrific

Trump will be busy with Rubio's eligibility to run for the next few days. He'll get to the gay rumor in due course.

if it becomes certain trump is going to win the nomination it might make sense for the party to kick him out anyway, despite the near guarantee that he'll run independent. at least it would help protect down ticket republicans - rep voters who would've voted dem rather than trump will still vote for a rep potus loser along with his ticket. trump voters will still need to pick a slate and it's likely to be rep.

I dont envision trump saying super homophobic stuff but who knows.

i imagine trump as the kind of straight who splits compositional hairs as to what kind of gay's respectable

Trump will say anything to get elected, so I wouldn't be surprised if he targets Rubio's supposed gay past but frames it as an issue of dishonesty/cowardice/untrustworthiness etc.

despite the near guarantee that he'll run independent.

there's balloting laws in place that would make it very difficult for him to do at this point, he's almost too far down the GOP nomination path. The closer he gets to it, the harder it would be for him to run third party.

i imagine trump as the kind of straight who splits compositional hairs as to what kind of gay's respectable

to a table of guffawing sycophants

Bizarre: Kasich is on CNN right now, getting an apology for his kitchen comment dragged out of him by Wolf Blitzer. Trump is living in one universe, everyone else another. (I don't want to end up apologizing myself, but I took it as a relatively innocuous acknowledgement that the majority of women weren't yet in the workforce in 1978--in his own clumsy way, I think it was intended as praise.)

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/report/chapter3/chart3-1.gif

is that seriously a new zoo revue gag because if so KUDOS SIR

Too much MST3K, actually

yeah kasich's "kitchen" comment is clumsy/dumb but way way less offensive than his signing the bill defunding planned parenthood in ohio, which prompted the question which prompted the kitchen comment. is blitzer asking him about that?

an ostentation of peacocks
a murder of crows
a guffawing of sycophants

"Well, when I'm with a homosexual, I get a little homosexual," Trump said. "To make them feel at home, you see."

heh

I have worked with many homosexuals, the best! Many of my closest friends are homosexuals, beautiful, hard working people.

(xposts) Didn't know the full context of Kasich's comment..Just pointing out the disconnect: Kasich and everyone else are operating on standard time--say something someone objects to, renounce/retract/repudiate--while Trump is several time zones into the future. I'm not sure if anyone even bothers going through the apology drill with him anymore.

This is good--you could say the same of 20 other shows, though, including every one on Sunday morning. (Sorry if this was posted earlier today.)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gingrich-fox-and-friends-invented-trump

Actually, you could say the same of Gingrich in 2012.

the lowest form of pol is someone who will say anything to get elected without doing some polling first

it's a mad mad MAD mad world!

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/02/22/christie-campaign-sells-email-list-of-supporters-donors-to-rubio-report-says/

This is great when they use the real voices (the impressions are lousy)--skipping-CD Rubio's my favourite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CHQlZiJ8YM&list=PLCF4E9612CFF6AD62

I know there's a link up there above, but phew....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrVOm-EVcY0

Kasich F U

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb3XxqOUsAApk_8.jpg:large

wow! do you have a link? i'm curious who the outliers are in the Lost General set, the only points that enter Trump territory.

i got it from here https://twitter.com/adrian_gray/status/701954365800759298, no link with it though

good graph to look at when you are feeling unchill karl

fitting that Trump's section of the chart resembles black mold

same guy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYJa5k6U0AErF3l.jpg:large

bottom line, this might be a low-turnout election

good graph to look at when you are feeling unchill karl

feeling more chill, yesss...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYJa5k6U0AErF3l.jpg:large

feeling a little more chilly but memories of recent warmth keep me going

a graph to cherish in the bitter watches of the night

everyone quit talking
i'm thinking about my graph

the upcoming election will be about whether we prefer our acne in the form of blackheads or whiteheads

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html

the article is based around the fact that "Mrs. Clinton has 502 delegates to Mr. Sanders’s 70", but somehow they never manage to explicitly mention that they're tied 51-51 in terms of delegates awarded via primaries and caucuses

im v much hating this superdelegates narrative, too. i intro'd by gov/econ class today with an "elected delegate" count at 51 apiece in protest.

Weren't HIllary people up in arms over superdelegates around Super Tuesday in 2008 because Obama was picking up a bunch?

shhhhh, youerrrrrr RUUUUUining the New York Times' narrative and their March 2 "Sanders Must Bow Out" editorial!

nyt doesn't even try to disguise their Hillary slant in their reporting, never mind the editorial pages.

Um? 'A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each.'

Also, since the first states have been slanted to Sanders, a tie means Clinton is doing best. She's won. She won when she tied in Iowa, basically.

How does this work?

'Mr. Devine, a veteran of presidential campaigns and a longtime expert in delegate strategy, said that if Mr. Sanders could end up close to Mrs. Clinton in the pledged delegate count, the senator and his team would lobby superdelegates from the states he won to reflect the will of their voters, defect from her and give him a margin to win the nomination.'

Democrat superdelegates are unpledged, can vote as they wish - Republicans are mostly constrained to reflect their home states. Any statement of intent before the convention is non-binding.

Not by accident of course, Democratic superdelegates are specifically there to prevent 'unelectable' candidates.

Yeah, but I meant, if you're losing the pledged delegate count, ie. the popular vote, how do you expect to win the nomination by lobbying superdelegates to 'reflect the will of their voters'?

It sounds either self-evidently impossible, or slightly fishy?

I guess the idea is that if it's 49/51 in delegates gained from votes, it looks bad if it's 25-75 counting superdelegates. I'm sure Sanders' campaign would like more leverage going into the convention, but as Doctor Casino was saying on the previous thread, it's an explicitly anti-democratic procedure, that's the point.

Just out of interest, what makes you guess to that? It really isn't what he's saying.

I'm guessing that by reading the sentence you quoted? Obviously it won't tip them over to victory, but then this is already a double impossibility - he won't get the pledged delegates and he won't convince the superdelegates.

there are not enough superdelegates to turn 49-51 elected delegates into 25-75 total delegates

x-post: But the sentence I quoted specifically spoke about how Sanders could 'win the nomination', so how can it not be about 'victory'?

"Yeah, but I meant, if you're losing the pledged delegate count, ie. the popular vote, how do you expect to win the nomination by lobbying superdelegates to 'reflect the will of their voters'?"

There is not exactly a popular vote during the primaries, because a lot of states hold caucuses. Also the way the delegates are pledged by state is often rather arcane. It's not impossible to imagine that a candidate could win a plurality of states, but lose in the wrong states, come in behind in the pledged delegate count and then make a case that they should win to the superdelegates. Do I think Sanders is likely to be able to make that case? No.