• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

Suddenly said:
Kennedy didn't seriously run in 1984. It was mostly a three way primary race among Mondale, Gary Hart, and Jesse Jackson. It wasn't a contested convention, but as I recall Hart's speech did largely upstage Mondale. Of course, Mondale wasn't exactly Mr. Charisma so that didn't take much.
Click to expand...
John Glenn was considered the frontrunner that year for the Dems, but he didn't have "the beef." This was what passed for negative advertising 30 years ago -- lifting the tagline from a hamburger commercial -- but it worked for Mondale, and Glenn never effectively answered. I still believe Barehl is misremembering the 1980 convention where Teddy K. upstaged Carter with his "dream shall never die" speech. You're right; he never ran for president again.
 
Trebuchet said:
45% each for Sanders & Clinton? Apparently, out of the total 20 Democrats in Nevada, they get nine each and two are undecided.
Click to expand...

Really, I was under the impression that the single largest population demographic in Nevada were tort lawyers and from most of my dealings with these, they seem almost universally Democratic?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The poll was bogus anyway. Maybe even completely dishonest. No one has verified the data.
Click to expand...

Yet the two groups, touted by the Clinton worshipers, are using it! RCP, and 538 both like it! What does that say?
I can see that's pissing off the Hill crowd!
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Really, I was under the impression that the single largest population demographic in Nevada were tort lawyers and from most of my dealings with these, they seem almost universally Democratic?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's the culinary union workers. They are not endorsing anyone, until the main event.
 
Dog Town said:
Pretty sure it's the culinary union workers. They are not endorsing anyone, until the main event.
Click to expand...

Well, I know that the CWU has more than 50,000 members, but you can't hardly chirp a siren without drawing a crowd of attorneys anywhere I've every been in the state (mild hyperbole)! Not that I personally, have any problem with attorneys. Some of my better friends have DJurs...

:D
 
GOP
P. Ryan
C. Christie •
M. Rubio •
J. Bush •
M. Bachmann
W. "M." Romney
S. Palin, VP of Never Gonna Run for President
M. Huckabee •
T. Pawlenty
J. Thune
S. Walker •
D. Trump (Really!) •
R. Paul (le fils) •
J. DeMint
N. Haley
S. Martinez
R. Santorum (GOP first) •
M. Pence
C. Rice
R. "T." Cruz •
P. "B." Jindal •
J. Brewer
J. Kasich •
B. Carson •
R. "B." McDonnell
J. Huntsman
T. Nugent (Celebrity Jokebag Contingent)
P. King
J. Bolton
H. Cain
J. Scarborough
M. Rogers
M. Blackburn
A. West
R. Perry •
C. Fiorina •
L. Graham •
G. Pataki •
R. Snyder
B. Ehrlich
J. Gilmore •

Dem
H. Clinton •
J. Biden
M. Warner
M. O’Malley •
A. Klobuchar
C. Booker
A. Villaraigosa
B. Schweitzer
K. Gillibrand
A. Cuomo
R. Emmanuel
M. Cantwell
E. Warren
Ju. Castro
D. Patrick
H. Dean
E.G. "J." Brown
J. Webb • (overall first)
L. Chafee •
B. Sanders •
L. Lessig •
A. Gore

Indeterminate
M. Bloomberg
J. Ventura
V. Supreme (Jokebag Contingent)
J. McAfee •
J. Webb
 
shemp said:
With the "brilliant" (stupid) strategy of winner-take-all primaries, the Republican Party mainstream, trying to push out fringe candidates and settle matters as early as possible, has once again shot itself in the foot.
Click to expand...

Personally, I see Cruz as about as fringe as fringe gets, squeezing him out is best for the entire nation not just establishment Republicans.
 
Trakar said:
Personally, I see Cruz as about as fringe as fringe gets, squeezing him out is best for the entire nation not just establishment Republicans.
Click to expand...

I agree. But the whole idea of winner-take-all primaries is ridiculous. The process is supposed to represent the "will of the people"TM, but how does that happen when a winner-take-all primary invalidates the votes of over 65% of the voters? Or course, the theory is to weed out fringe candidates as early as possible, prevent them from having a voice at the convention, and also prevent a brokered convention. But in this case, 50 delegates went to the second-biggest nutter in the field. There are over 15 more winner-take-all primaries coming.

Of course, across the aisle, the Democrats have over 700 superdelegates who can decide a close race (i.e., possibly save Hillary's butt) and potentially screw millions of voters.
 
Have some perspective folks:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/02/11/sanders-campaign-doomed-superdelegates/
Here’s why it doesn’t matter: Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.
Click to expand...

It plays well in liberalville to portray Sanders as the underdog. He repeats this at every campaign speech. "I wasn't expected to be viable" makes second place (nationally) look better and "look how far Clinton has fallen" makes her look worse.

"The DNC is unfair to Sanders" gets supporters riled up. In that same Snopes piece (which is pretty thorough, by the way) they report on the Moveon.org petition to have the super delegates pledge not to go against the popular vote even though there's no history that they ever would. Supporting Clinton now is an endorsement but not an actual vote until the convention.
 
shemp said:
I agree. But the whole idea of winner-take-all primaries is ridiculous. The process is supposed to represent the "will of the people"TM, but how does that happen when a winner-take-all primary invalidates the votes of over 65% of the voters? Or course, the theory is to weed out fringe candidates as early as possible, prevent them from having a voice at the convention, and also prevent a brokered convention. But in this case, 50 delegates went to the second-biggest nutter in the field. There are over 15 more winner-take-all primaries coming.

Of course, across the aisle, the Democrats have over 700 superdelegates who can decide a close race (i.e., possibly save Hillary's butt) and potentially screw millions of voters.
Click to expand...

If super-delegates end up being a major reason Clinton wins the democratic primary, then they will also be a major reason Democratic turn-out is low in both the primaries and the general election, and a main reason why third party votes go up. There are, and should always be, consequences to the choices people make.
 
Trakar said:
If super-delegates end up being a major reason Clinton wins the democratic primary, then they will also be a major reason Democratic turn-out is low in both the primaries and the general election, and a main reason why third party votes go up. There are, and should always be, consequences to the choices people make.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree that there are consequences. The choice to stay home or vote 3rd party will give you the consequence of the person you are most opposed to winning the presidency, rather than the second closest to your preferred ideology. These actions are colloquially referred to as 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'
 
wareyin said:
I certainly agree that there are consequences. The choice to stay home or vote 3rd party will give you the consequence of the person you are most opposed to winning the presidency, rather than the second closest to your preferred ideology. These actions are colloquially referred to as 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'
Click to expand...

No, it will mean there will be a choice between two terrible candidates for the job, with one being more terrible than the other. All I'm saying is that if you want my support, you need to offer a candidate who isn't terrible. I'm not saying I will only vote for a perfect candidate (after all, I'm willing to vote for Bernie Sanders, who is much further away from a "perfect candidate" than Elizabeth Warren or many other possible Democratic candidates who could have been in the running for the DNC candidate). I won't vote for a less terrible candidate who then becomes my defacto "good enough" candidate as far as the DNC and any other reasonable analysis of my choice would find. Hillary is under no circumstances good enough for me. I don't demand perfection, but I do have some minimal standards which she does not measure up to.
 
Trakar said:
No, it will mean there will be a choice between two terrible candidates for the job, with one being more terrible than the other. All I'm saying is that if you want my support, you need to offer a candidate who isn't terrible. I'm not saying I will only vote for a perfect candidate (after all, I'm willing to vote for Bernie Sanders, who is much further away from a "perfect candidate" than Elizabeth Warren or many other possible Democratic candidates who could have been in the running for the DNC candidate. I won't vote for a less terrible candidate who then becomes my defacto "good enough" candidate as far as the DNC and any other reasonable analysis of my choice would find. Hillary is under no circumstances good enough for me. I don't demand perfection, but I do have some minimal standards which she does not measure up to.
Click to expand...
I took one of those silly online quizzes that were posted on ISkep purporting to tell you which candidate you should support. Clinton and Sanders were both extremely high for my values. Clinton beat Sanders by 1% point. Your claims of a vast, or even large difference seem hyperbole to me.

The fact of the matter is choosing to not vote or vote 3rd party is a de facto vote for the most terrible candidate. You may be happy to vote in the candidate you find most terrible, but I find that a rhinectomy.
 
Trakar, your sour grapes are misplaced. Super delegates have never been used to override the popular vote in a Democratic Primary. I posted a link to that effect in one of these threads earlier.

I know you want Sanders' revolution to be there. I know it feels like there is a movement out there, and there is, it's just not big enough to qualify as a revolution. It's too bad the people in Trump's movement weren't on Sanders' side but from looking at the current results, ~1/4 of this country's voters want socialism and ~1/4 want whatever that is they think Trump is offering, and ~1/2 are in neither movement.

After March 1st you'll know if Sanders has a chance in hell of winning the nomination. It's not going to be the super delegates that decide.

But a lot of good can still come from Sanders' efforts. Let's hope it translates into a movement to change the Senate. That's really where the revolution needs to begin.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
I took one of those silly online quizzes that were posted on ISkep purporting to tell you which candidate you should support. Clinton and Sanders were both extremely high for my values. Clinton beat Sanders by 1% point. Your claims of a vast, or even large difference seem hyperbole to me.

The fact of the matter is choosing to not vote or vote 3rd party is a de facto vote for the most terrible candidate. You may be happy to vote in the candidate you find most terrible, but I find that a rhinectomy.
Click to expand...

Yellow is only blue away from green, it is unfortunate that actual analysis about issues of importance to me do not conform to the guesstimation generalities of your internet poll experience. Hopefully your actual consideration of these issues is based upon more compelling and quantitative analyses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom