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

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.

It's outrageous, like something you would see at the famous Aarhus Carnival next month. Except even Syddanmarkers wouldn't stand for such nonsense.

Sanders is running on a 'political revolution', not gaming the system to get two more votes.

fred you're a clown and please stfu

yes plz

you play by the current rules, like that stooge Obama

Sanders doesnt really have a political revolution plan (as discussed) and won those other 2 delegates according to the party's rules, no "gaming the system" necessary.

Xp

yeah by that logic winning any delegates is "gaming the system." sanders has 1,068 pledged - i don't think we realize how deep his treacherous gamesmanship goes.

"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"

Like, if we're all okay with this, then fine. But Nevada makes it harder for Sanders to argue against indirectly picking party nominees.

no

the party process involves multiple stages of deliberation and election of representatives

superdelegacy is about the 'sticky' establishment of powerful party entities within that process so that they cannot be dislodged by its lower-level, more representative stages and can therefore voice the prerogatives of the established against the people the party serves / is constituted by

if you see no difference at all there then gtfo

anyway afaik sanders hasn't really been saying the superdelegates are undemocratic or w/e. he's been pushing the "we're hoping that as we keep winning, and the polls show us doing better against trump, some superdelegates will swing our way" (aka the "maybe it'll be like 2008" scenario).

i am, to put it mildly, very skeptical of the chances of this happening. but it's a different thing than "only the popular vote is ever legitimate and we must overthrow the superdelegates, by force if necessary," which i think is the only standard by which we could even begin to have the conversation about nevradka's convention delegates being somehow more scandalous than any of the other delegates both candidates have won through channels not bound to the popular vote.

hey Frederik remember when Hillary Clinton won six coin tosses in a row

Lol nevradka

x-post: No. But I do remember many Sanders supporters in my tl lying about that back at the Iowa caucus.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

Goodnight.

It's too early to go to sleep...HERE IN AMERICA

no but really do you know how improbable it is that she won six coin tosses in a row. it's like so improbable you don't even know. can't believe Hillary cheated the American people out of their rightful president.

Don't stop posting now man, you had Sanders on the ropes.

maybe frederik is just trying to get sanders to give up on trying to model america on any aspect of denmark

"nebraska is basically a rectangle and in the great plains, nevada is more of an irregular trapezoid and is mostly in the desert" for next phase election thread title plz

Is Donald Trump still expected to win the Republican nomination?

He was, then last week it seemed he wasn't.

Perhaps some of you can enlighten me!

He seems to have gone into a Witness Protection Program the past week. No one really knows what's going on.

He's been busy arranging more golf-related charitable donations.

Tees for the homeless, tam o'shanters for hurricane victims, that sort of thing.

"maybe frederik is just trying to get sanders to give up on trying to model america on any aspect of denmark"
HEY AMERIKKKA YUR DOING SOCIALISM WRONG

I don't think Trump is going to wind up with the delegates going into the convention, brokered convention seems likely at this point.

Coin flip thing still a myth btw

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/index.html

http://www.newser.com/story/219977/myth-busting-coin-tosses-didnt-decide-iowa-race.html

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

it was actually a three man sack race

shh this is between me and Frederik

Jimmah ain't happy with Hills:

Former President Carter says Hillary Clinton “took very little action” as secretary of State to bring about peace.

Carter, 89, made the remark about the former secretary of State and 2016 Democratic front-runner in a phone interview with Time magazine Wednesday night after he spoke at the Civil Rights Summit in Austin, Texas.

John Kerry has been successful as secretary of State, Carter said, because President Obama has been deeply involved in the foreign policy issues of his second term.

“In this occasion, when Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, she took very little action to bring about peace. It was only John Kerry’s coming into office that reinitiated all these very important and crucial issues,” he said.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/203189-carter-on-clinton-she-took-very-little-action