Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

realizing the trump "spill the beans" thing, is once again trump deciding to make a big dumb spectacle to get attention on primary night

New York Times has called AZ for Hillary & Trump.

sorry, that was improper of me. Clinton and Trump.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/straight-talk-from-bernie-sanders-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict

sanders is the only adult running for president, frankly.

^^^^

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

i like 538's delegate tracker because it compares the results against what each candidate "needs" to be "on track" for the nomination, and thus allows you to put these election nights into context. (for example, coming in hillary had 111% of the delegates she needed so far to be on track for the nomination, while bernie was at 88%. starting this week, the territory becomes more favorable for bernie for a while, and so according to 538 his target for tonight's 137 delegates is to win 74. assuming he stays at 37% in AZ, bernie would need to win 66% of the vote in idaho and utah to get 74 for the night

btw only a little over half of arizona has reported yet

http://apps.azsos.gov/election/2016/PPE/Results/PPE2016Results.htm

Why not say our news organization doesn't tolerate evasive answers, contradictions, and lies?

If you actually said this, I think you'd look self-righteous and silly. Ask the question, ask a follow-up definitely, but a certain point, you have to trust that people can see through nonsense. It's not like Trump's fooling the whole country or anything--maybe 40% of his party ("of his party" not exactly accurate) believes everything he says, the other 60% doesn't, a large part of that 60% is scrambling around to prevent him from getting the nomination, and most of the rest of the country sees him as the buffoon he is. I don't think asking the same question six times instead of two is going to move those numbers much.

― clemenza, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:18 PM (8 hours ago)

I'm not advocating asking a question six times. I'm advocating news organizations not being used by politicians as free space to say whatever the hell they want. I think politicians routinely walk all over journalists and I think they show little to no guts in confronting them about it.

assuming he stays at 37% in AZ, bernie would need to win 66% of the vote in idaho and utah to get 74 for the night

― k3vin k., Wednesday, March 23, 2016 12:13 AM (1 hour ago)

(btw if anyone cares i re-did the math because it didn't seem right and assuming a 60/40 AZ loss, he needs 78%, not 66%)

he got 74% in utah (w/ 15% reporting)

78% on the nose in Idaho.

timellison otm

Sanders needs more than blowouts in the favorable states upcoming, he needs a Clinton error makes Nancy/AIDS look miniscule (can it, Shakey).

I'm advocating news organizations not being used by politicians as free space to say whatever the hell they want. I think politicians routinely walk all over journalists and I think they show little to no guts in confronting them about it.
― timellison

As a general proposition applying to both parties and all politicians, I don't disagree with that at all, Tim. But if you trace this detour back, it began with the specific idea that if only Trump were questioned more vigorously, people would start to see through him. I disagree with that because a) he is asked follow-up questions, all the time, to no avail--he just repeats the same generalities over and over, and b) I think most people already realize he's saying nothing--people who hate him, obviously, but, as Mad Puffin points out, I'm not even sure what percentage of the people who support him actually take his blather literally. You can ask him for exact details on how he plans to get Mexico to play for his wall twice or five times or ten times, and you just go around in circles.

Interviewer: How will you get them to pay? Mexico is a sovereign country.
Trump: Oh, they'll pay, believe me.
Interviewer: But how?
Trump: They'll pay, and it'll be an amazing wall.
Interviewer: You're still not being specific--how will you make this happen?
Trump: Read my book, The Art of the Deal. It'll happen, believe me. And because you're making me mad right now, the wall just got three feet higher.

On and on and on. We've been hearing that for the last eight months.

AZ: hourslong lines to vote, no polls open AT ALL in at least one Latino district, evacuations for bomb threats at peak voting times, etc.

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

Next time Trump tells someone "believe me" the proper response should be "see, I don't believe you, because you're not answering the question." And then the interviewer should kick him in the balls and say "believe that, motherfucker." Then take off his hat, put it on, and walk out of the room in slow motion while Trump rolls around on the floor moaning.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/dd/c9/85/ddc985f6e176d6fa26aae7171e232d60.jpg

xpost -- or the more concise version, "you've given the country a lot of reasons not to believe you," and leave that hanging there.

had to look up rumors about cruz' wife to sate my curiosity, apparently she suffered from depression. massive low blow from trump if that's what he's planning on throwing around but it's not like that's surprising

"Little Teddy's wife is a crybaby. It's true."

'Person who lives in the same home as Ted Cruz suffers from depression' doesn't exactly seem like a lid-blower.

Hey, I know we hate these cats but mental illness isn't funny, and if we follow that line we're basically just accepting Trump's bait imho.

Who said it was funny? I'm saying a) it's totally the kind of thing that Trump would latch onto as crassly as possible, and b) being married to Ted Cruz is certainly a factor that might contribute to someone's depression.

Allegations of depression aside, it's pretty much the grossest thing ever anytime a political candidate starts going after a rival's family.

c) it would indeed be a lame thing to threaten to expose, if that's what he meant

Jeb! endorsing It's Pat today

I guess it's hard for me not to read a 'being married to that guy would make anyone depressed' kinda comment and not feel like it's a cheap zing. But if you didn't mean it that way, my apologies.

fortune has some cool analysis for you

http://fortune.com/donald-trump-white-supremacist-genocide/

Countless numbers of people mention #WhiteGenocide each day on Twitter, but Fortune used social media analytics software from Little Bird to find those who are considered to be the most prominent. In the world of social media marketing, such people are called “influencers.”

“Our technology builds a big network of hundreds or thousands of specialists in a particular field or people who used a particular hashtag, and then analyzes the connections between the people in that network,” explains Little Bird co-founder and chairman Marshall Kirkpatrick. “We then find the person or people in that group that are most followed by others in the same group. It’s kind of like a ‘9-out-of-10 dentists recommend’ model rather than measuring people by the absolute popularity. We view it as earned influence within a specific context.”

The Little Bird software analyzed Twitter content to generate a ranked list of just under 2,000 #WhiteGenocide “influencers” as of February 8. The more impactful, the higher up on the list (which, understandably, ebbs and flows a bit over time).

Since the start of his campaign, Donald Trump has retweeted at least 75 users who follow at least three of the top 50 #WhiteGenocide influencers. Moreover, a majority of these retweeted accounts are themselves followed by more than 100 #WhiteGenocide influencers.

Said this last night--because Cruz's wife works for Goldman-Sachs, and because that's Trump's world, my guess is his threat resides there.

huh Sanders' biggest margins of victory yet

too bad it doesn't matter

yeah, hardly anyone is reporting on it. even with the huge margin, sanders picked up 67, clinton 51, so only a 16 net increase.

I thought it was dumb that CNN's story was "Clinton wins big in AZ" and not "Sanders wins more delegates than Clinton overall"

that's the problem w/ doing v well in small delegate states and poorly in large delegate states. he should do well in wisconsin, washington, guessing wyoming too? no idea about hawaii or alaska, and then the next one is NY where latest polls has hill up +48. hard to imagine he can feasibly catch up. xp

would love to be pleasantly surprised tho and have the party roll on to PA

so AZ's voting was supremely fucked up enough that the GOP governor had to comment on it

'Vader scores direct hit on X-Wings; Rebels also gain'

WA is, idiotically, caucuses, which I'd have to guess favors the Clinton demos.

caucuses + white people favors Sanders

closed Dem primaries favor Clinton

caucuses are really the stupidest thing

"what a great resume" yutzes favor Clinton

caucuses really are archaic in terms of their rules, it's just bizarre. crowds of people shuffling from one area of a room to another.

have you ever been to a Shoney's buffet?

nice

idk what a Shoney's is

that's a no then

Huckabee already dropped out though.

http://i.imgur.com/tHOPIHl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/GmB21cc.jpg

had not realized but there is a definite cruz / shoney's big boy resemblance

Pssh, 'resemblance' my foot. J'ACCUSE, 'BIG BOY' CRUZ.