Conventional Mealy Mouths: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 5

Goshen goes Clinton. 7-7, it seems.

It's pretty obvious to most people that the safe bet is that Sanders won't win the nomination. But he was always a longshot and he's has made it close enough that it's obvious that his proposals resonate with a hell of a lot of voters.

I greatly doubt that the majority of the pro-Sanders votes are just Hillary haters who don't know or care that Bernie's in favor of that dreaded bugaboo 'socialized medicine', and he wants to break up the biggest mega-banks, or find a way to make college tuition-free. Conventional wisdom was that he'd get nowhere with a platform like that.

just found out my dad is for hillary and my mom and sister are for bernie, and it's so contentious they can't even discuss it! ffs people.

Sander's is like all the good grandpa's from the Great Depression that are now dying off, except I guess he's a bit younger and won't dead quite as soon.

it's totally predictable though. my dad is a Organization Guy. the biggest tribe provides the most safety. the team is all, loyalty to it is everything. when SEIU split from the AFL-CIO he washed his hands of them and admits their successes in glancing terms at best (but if it was trumka spearheading the fight for 15 you'd never hear the end of it from him)

did your dad go to college?

For me, my Bernie support USED to be about economic justice, socialized medicine, etc. At this point, I'd just like him to win so I can repost and mock the endless fucking arrogant horse-race-y, conventional wisdom-spouting strings of posts from Frederick and the rest of the ILXers who've been calling the the Sanders campaign DOA for the last 9 months as he went from 60+ points behind to within a few percentage points. We. Get. It.

tbf, most of the conventional wisdom-spouting horseshit posts about Sanders were from Freddie B. they hardly count, since almost everyone got on his case for them.

I'm not sure "only" winning by 11-12 points reflects negatively on his momentum at all.

If Sanders somehow pulls this off, I'll mock Shakey in-person.

That's weird because I just plain like Sanders but I sometimes find myself sort of rooting against him because of the endless Facebook posts (not so much on ilx) explaining how he's actually winning or how black voters in the south shouldn't count or how caucuses are actually much better representations of the will of the people than actual votes. But I try to resist this feeling because I do like the guy a lot and I see his unexpected success as good for the country. If I could vote against Seth Abramson, or the staff of Salon more generally, I would do that.

never vote for a President on terms of likability imo

I'm a registered Republican voting in the PA primary April 26. Recommendations on who I should vote for? Trump, Cruz, Kasich?

it's ok to not vote for a candidate who scares the bejabbers out of you

abstaining is a live option

for a long time i figured wyoming was just a legend or a myth, since i'd never been there, met anyone from there, or really heard it mentioned outside of western movies. but then i drove through it and... it exists! but yes, there are not many people there.

Bernie rally on the Coney boardwalk tomw, when it should be about 45 degrees

frigid April

my mom and sister are for bernie, and it's so contentious they can't even discuss it!

ugh so sexist

https://whatimg.com/i/fyoutR.jpg

https://whatimg.com/i/fyoutR.jpg

As Campaigns Seek Delegates, Ordinary Voters Feel Sidelined

By JEREMY W. PETERS

As Americans flock this year to outsider candidates, they are suddenly waking up to the reality that the process for picking the parties’ nominees involves ordinary voters in only an indirect way.

HEY HO WHADDYA KNOW

Yup. And because of Nebraska, Sanders can't complain about it. Such a dumb mistake.

Glenn Beck on Meet the Press this morning, bespectacled, sagacious, quoting Martin Luther King: "We're all in this together."

All the media bookers bringing him back from perdition, anyone have any kind of a memory?

http://sarthanapalos.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/beck-blackboard-coming.jpg?w=500

As Campaigns Seek Delegates, Ordinary Voters Feel Sidelined

what's the alternative here? do you want more, earlier general elections?

When this campaign is over a bunch of people will write a bunch of books about how weird it all was and why, and I won't read any of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTvDMqmjWGs

we're just ordinary voters
we don't know which way to vote

there are some strange things in the boston globe's mock cover imagining a trump presidency:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797782/Ideas-Trump-front-page.pdf

perhaps one national party primary is the solution, caek

however it will, like all such democratizing move happen in 50 years or never

And because of Nebraska

If 30 of us read this, i suspect 27 have no idea whut that means

lol

imho one national primary would not necessarily be better! all advantage goes to the most organized/pushed/"established" candidate. as goofy as the current system is it reminds me more of like, idk, bands on tour in the old days... building up a following, having time for word of mouth. not like we usually see "underground" candidates or anything, but something like what sanders has been able to do is nice to have around as a possibility.

there are arguments for flaws to the Primary system but it isn't like federal elections, they can just change their nominating process each election! and independent Trump supporters can sod right off - the system isn't broken, your candidate decided to run as a Republican and not a third-party and this is the process in place and should someone had run in Trump's place and run into the same "not enough delegates" conundrum, it'd be handled the same way. the only way they'd have a legit gripe is if he had the prerequisite number and they "ex post facto" him by changing the rules.

I agree w/ Casino on the bands analogy. Also feel like it allows the public to react over time to a candidate rather than making a rash decision based on a first impression. Neither Trump or Clinton can merely coast on their early wins (though both seem like they're trying like hell to do that in the last week or so) - which is why the cries on both side are annoying. Yeah, Trump is the overwhelming leader in delegates - because he had overwhelming success early in a crowded pool. His performance lately suggests he is nowhere near as popular even among his own party at the moment.

same w/ Clinton, though she has been more consistent than he has and results are easier to compare because it's been a two party race since almost the beginning.

Spike Lee ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lauspctcEqQ

surprised @ no double dolly shot

Belafonte could be a senior Jedi in the next SW film

such a dumb mistake

idgi. Sanders can't change the nominating process. How would the ability to complain about it help his campaign? Are you suggesting that voters decide who they'll vote for based on procedural issues in the nominating process?

i don't even know what this nebraska mistake is we're referring to

awww, my best friend (the enthusiastic bernie canvasser i mentioned above) is visible in the spike lee ad, behind shaun king at one point

idgi. Sanders can't change the nominating process. How would the ability to complain about it help his campaign? Are you suggesting that voters decide who they'll vote for based on procedural issues in the nominating process?

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), 10. april 2016 19:55 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Superdelegates might. Why take 2 extra delegates in Nebraska, against the popular vote, when if that was the significant 2 delegates it would undermine the argument to superdelegates about 'the will of the voters'? So dumb.

no you're dumb

Superdelegates might.

Not bloody likely. Superdelegates are the very essence of the inequity of the nominating process. That inequity gives them more control and gives the voters less control. They like it that way! They don't want to change it. Complaining about the process throws them in a bad light. This is not perceived by them as A Good Thing. They will resent it.

seems like any baseless speculation about what super delegates might or might not do is just that

also i can only suppose that by nebraska fred means nevada, which in fairness probably are the same place from his perspective over there in denmark

yeah so fred, first of all i can only assume you are talking about nevada, not nebraska, because you brought up the nevada thing before as "stealing," and i responded pointing out that didn't make any sense, and you never addressed the point. so i guess i'm inclined to assume you're still beating this same drum, but forgive me if i'm not and you're on some different and even more confusing trip about the good state of nebraska (where bernie won the popular vote afaict). tip: nebraska is basically a rectangle and in the great plains, nevada is more of an irregular trapezoid and is mostly in the desert.

Lol, Sanders apparently just stole the election in Nevada.

― Frederik B, Sunday, April 3, 2016 7:25 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(...)

yeah "stole" seems like not the right verb...? nevada awards its delegates in several phases and it seems sanders's people turned out more for this one, which was never obligated to match the popular-vote results in the state. no delegates were taken away from clinton. you could argue that nevada awards its delegates in a dumb and loopy way, but the thing is playing out according to the rules as far as i can tell?

― never ending bath infusion (Doctor Casino), Sunday, April 3, 2016 11:30 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Oh, fuck. Yeah. Good I didn't get into how unfair it was to the sizable latino community.

>_<

It's so unfair and shady how, playing by the rules in a state that awards delegates in multiple phases, Sanders dared to win phase two, even though he had lost phase one. So dumb.

Yeah, it's by the rules, but so are Superdelegates.