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

ok then he was refused entry to the Democratic-Republican debates

As much as I don't agree with Morbz on various things, I always enjoy his contributions to these conversations, just as alternate POVs. Keeps life interestin

Morbz is classic, he should run for President next time round.

With gabbnebb as veep

... though if a bird landed on his podium during a speech he'd probably bite its head off. (xp)

adolescent conception

This counts as the "be an ADULT" argument, i collect $200

LOL, from the fucko who told people to "put on their pajamas" in the fucking Batman movie thread, don't you even ever get bored with yourself?

adult in the cinema, child at the ballot box - this is what democracy looks like

Hey guys I'm just returning from eight months of mission work in Angola and trying to get caught up. Figured I'd start here but this page takes sooooooo long to load now, using my bookmark.

So what's happening? I mean I'm sure Jeb is way out in front w/ delegates...just please please please just tell me there's no chance (nightmare scenario) Scott Walker gets nominated. On the other hand that would p spell the end of the Republican party.

It's pretty much down to Heidi Cruz and Melania Trump at this point.

Walker was fatally stabbed by some goons later linked to the Perry campaign (though I'm not sure we ever got real confirmation of that) which took him out too; there were some kinda crazy and chaotic debates which is why the threads are so long but the short version is that Jim Gilmore, barring some really unlikely developments, is sailing to the nom. I can't remember though, who was Jeb?

Hmm Gilmore, interesting. A year for dark horses then.

Heidi Cruz, Melanoma Trump....these are rank-and-file house members I guess? Politics is so unpredictable.

Btw though: kinda big night for Sanders right? I mean he was projected to win those states (though I remember rumblings about how the HI dem machine would work in Clinton's favor), but I don't have a sense of by how much he was expected to win. Only WA is really delegate-rich but I'd be interested to see thoughtful writing on those contests, their demographics, etc.

BERNIE Sanders?

Also—last question— caught a few minutes of Gwen Ifill on PBS News Hour... the little box above her shoulder said "Election 2016" but she was talking about, like, Guy Fieri's penis or something?

xp It was a big night, Sanders definitely overperformed.

Washington, the largest prize Saturday with 101 delegates in play, was a vital state for Mr. Sanders, whose prospects of capturing the nomination dimmed after double-digit losses to Mrs. Clinton across the South and weak showings in delegate-rich Ohio, Florida and North Carolina this month. As of Saturday evening, Mrs. Clinton had roughly 280 more pledged delegates, who are awarded based on voting, and 440 more superdelegates — party leaders and elected officials — than Mr. Sanders.

WI comes next which I think he'll win, but behind still over 200 delegates Sanders needs wins in upcoming states like NY (4/19, Hill +48 in latest Emerson poll), PA + MD (4/26, Hill +25 and +33) and CA + NJ (6/7). California looks winnable but none of the other ones do and while there are other more Bernie favorable states during this time period they're all tiny and these states are all huge. Unless my heart is right and the bird event means that his presidency is divinely ordained, I still don't see it happening. I was thinking before yesterday that if he made her non-viable in one or more of yesterday's states I might've felt that indicated a more dramatic reversal but just overperforming his polls in these places isn't sufficient. imho.

538's delegate tracker has him at 91% of his "target" now, and hillary at 107%. those should both rise a little, as not all of the delegates from last night have been awarded yet

what makes one non-viable? and how would one distinguish being "non-viable" from losing by 40-50 points?

i don't think either candidate is going to be shown to be "non-viable". polls have consistently shown that most democrats would be fine with either candidate as their nominee

if you go below 15% you get no delegates

Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I remember 2008 is that the pledged-delegate count was the one that was always front-and-center, and the superdelegates were an afterthought (because the feeling, which turned out to be exactly the case, was that they would drift over to Obama eventually). This year, on CNN and elsewhere, their delegate tracking always includes superdelegates. Seems unfair to Sanders.

if you go below 15% you get no delegates

― Mordy, Sunday, March 27, 2016 12:28 PM (2 minutes ago

oh i see what you mean

Unless the Democratic Party wants to tear itself in half in the same year the GOP is doing so just to even the playing field, I doubt that the superdelegates would want to thwart the apparent will of the people at the convention, if it came to that

xp in my calculation above i only counted pledged delegates which is really the insurmountable part to my eyes. now if bernie can win in most/all of NY, NJ, PA, CA i'd feel more optimistic about his campaign.

I got Bernie going from needing something 58.3% of the remaining pledged delegates before yesterday to now needing about 56.7%.

*something like

xp in my calculation above i only counted pledged delegates

You did, which is good. The most prominent delegate trackers don't.

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/parties/democrat
NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/
CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/

ABC's is a little better:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Election

fwiw the democratic nomination odds didn't shift at all in response to yesterday's results, which suggest they didn't exceed expectations to those people

I think Sanders supporters actually have a reasonable case for Sanders's strength in a general election. But I find it frustrating that when HRC racks up huge margins in, I dunno, Tennessee or Alabama, those states are dismissed by Sanders supporters as "the old South" and irrelevant in the general, whereas Sanders getting big wins in WA, AK, HI reads as an important indicator of Sanders's strength. I think when Sanders massively outperformed polls in Michigan there was a real question: have things moved decisively in his favor? Is he more popular than HRC in Florida, in Ohio, in Pennsylvania, the states where general elections are actually decided? I think he's been A LOT STRONGER in FL and OH, and will be stronger in PA, than anybody would have expected three months ago. But I don't see how to get around the fact that more Democrats in those states are voting for Clinton.

To me, the superdelegates are just placeholders, and shouldn't be reported at all. Unless the feeling this time is that they're a solid bulwark against Sanders winning, even if he started pulling (improbable) upsets in New York and Pennsylvania. And then you'd run into the problem silby mentions.

I think if Sanders makes another huge leap in popularity and wins big in places like NY, PA, MD -- seems unlikely to me but so does a lot of stuff that's actually happened -- HRC concedes graciously and campaigns hard for him in the general. She's a Democrat, she's a creature of the party, I think she cares a lot more about there being a Democrat in the White House than she cares whether it's her.

Yeah I don't understand why they are being reported as if they are already counted, exaggerating Clinton's lead.

Is there any chance Clinton gets indicted for the email server nonsense before she locks up enough delegates for the Democratic nomination? I have no idea how seriously to take that investigation since the online commentary about it is totally wackadoo.

I only read 538 on this stuff so I didn't even know other places were reporting superdelegate counts, agree there's no reason to

we've discussed it before and i still see no reason to consider it a serious possibility. xp

Thanks. My only line of reasoning for it being unlikely was how few Sanders supporters bring it up as a reason for him not to bow out until the convention.

adolescent conception

This counts as the "be an ADULT" argument, i collect $200

LOL, from the fucko who told people to "put on their pajamas" in the fucking Batman movie thread

i guess i'll just conclude my li'l victory dance/horselaugh over what Phil D considers coequal adolescent material and go watch The Straight Story in 35mm

Really trying to figure out whether the subtext of this entire thread is that Dr. Morbius is Armond White

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

That flowchart, widely shared on my feed, is awesome for people who think being undecided between Sanders and Trump is a reasonable political stance, not so much for everybody else.

I think if Sanders makes another huge leap in popularity and wins big in places like NY, PA, MD -- seems unlikely to me but so does a lot of stuff that's actually happened -- HRC concedes graciously and campaigns hard for him in the general. She's a Democrat, she's a creature of the party, I think she cares a lot more about there being a Democrat in the White House than she cares whether it's her.

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Sunday, March 27, 2016 12:58 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i would bet my entire bank account against HRC doing this if i could -- she stayed in through june against obama, remember. besides, even if she started losing big states, she could still clinch the nomination with a sting showing in CA to close it out

HOF Freudian slip: "with a sting showing"--entraps Bernie in a heroin ring.

I think she cares a lot more about there being a Democrat in the White House than she cares whether it's her.

nah

i mean yeah i'm sure she'd prefer sanders over a republican but there's no way she'd back off 'for the good of the party'. to her, the good of the party means her winning

i would bet my entire bank account against HRC doing this if i could

Sorry, I made it sound like I thought HRC would drop out in April -- I agree that's hard to imagine. I think she'd concede before the convention and campaign hard for him afterwards.

But again, I don't actually think any of this is actually going to happen; I think Clinton is going to win in New York and Maryland and Pennsylvania and go into the convention with a majority of delegates.

to her, the good of the party means her winning

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. To my eye her entire public life is that of a loyal soldier for the Democratic party. She didn't try to undercut Obama once it was clear he'd be the nominee, even though a President McCain would have given her an opening in 2012.

There is no way she would ever, ever, ever, do that. Are we talking about the same HRC?

Yeah she only managed to impugn his professed religion ("as far as I know") and run a soft smear on him the whole time until she realized it was over and they agreed to make her the candidate next time.

Her team also indirectly originated the Birther movement

I am actually fascinated by this now, do you guys seriously think that if Sanders were the nominee Clinton would do anything other than go to the mat to get him elected President?

If he gets the nomination, obviously. But her standards of "once it's clear" would be very different from yours and mine.

i.e. after the convention. This is their last chance, remember—at least until Chelsea is launched.

yeah the only way hillary would drop out is if she's mathematically eliminated. which, with superdelegates, is probably not possible

So I guess this is where we differ. If Sanders somehow surges so strongly that he leads in pledged delegates, I see Clinton conceding at the convention.