Michigan Primary

[Further]

Whoa, this is looking pretty crazy.

On the R side, so far it looks like Trump will win, at 37% right now. With 75% reporting, Kasich and Cruz tied for 2nd with about 25% each. Shockingly, Rubio is only at 9%. I think Rubio getting dirty, talking dick size with Trump really made him look too young for the electorate. I bet he quits the race by Saturday.


On the D side, it's virtually tied Sanders and Clinton, right now Sanders up by a hair. But in one of the last polls, Clinton had been up by 17%, so this is really unexpected. I don't think it will be enough to make a difference, but perhaps it will make Hillary look too weak and Bernie could go on a roll.

It's a great game!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

NY Times, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC all calling it for Bernie!

After the shady shit that happened in Massachusetts I'm not buying until the last vote is counted but he's had a good night. I think most polls showed him losing by 15% today.

 

[MarAzul]

Whoa, this is looking pretty crazy.

On the R side, so far it looks like Trump will win, at 37% right now. With 75% reporting, Kasich and Cruz tied for 2nd with about 25% each. Shockingly, Rubio is only at 9%. I think Rubio getting dirty, talking dick size with Trump really made him look too young for the electorate. I bet he quits the race by Saturday.


On the D side, it's virtually tied Sanders and Clinton, right now Sanders up by a hair. But in one of the last polls, Clinton had been up by 17%, so this is really unexpected. I don't think it will be enough to make a difference, but perhaps it will make Hillary look too weak and Bernie could go on a roll.

It's a great game!

I love it! Seeing Hillary lose is cool, even a primary. Lets say Bernie did by some majic win. I know you will vote for him but do you think the nation will vote for a socialist over the ultimate Capitalist ever to run? I think maybe Bernie wins NH.

 

[Further]

I love it! Seeing Hillary lose is cool, even a primary. Lets say Bernie did by some majic win. I know you will vote for him but do you think the nation will vote for a socialist over the ultimate Capitalist ever to run? I think maybe Bernie wins NH.

I'm really not sure. I think Kasich or some other moderate would kill Bernie, but I think Bernie would cream Cruz. I really don't know who would win between Bernie and Trump.

 

[Further]

Oh, and Hillary smashed Bernie to hell in Mississippi. But that was expected and not too indicative of any of the upcoming states. Whereas MI could be a bellwether for Ohio, Wisconsin and several other upcoming contests.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I love it! Seeing Hillary lose is cool, even a primary. Lets say Bernie did by some majic win. I know you will vote for him but do you think the nation will vote for a socialist over the ultimate Capitalist ever to run? I think maybe Bernie wins NH.

No way, the job givers will be very angry with us if we elect Sanders.

 

[MarAzul]

No way, the job givers will be very angry with us if we elect Sanders.

I think you are right. At some point a job will out rank a free bird in the bush.

 

[jlprk]

Oh, and Hillary smashed Bernie to hell in Mississippi. But that was expected and not too indicative of any of the upcoming states. Whereas MI could be a bellwether for Ohio, Wisconsin and several other upcoming contests.

The South is not the bellwether of the North, or of deciding the Democratic candidate for the whole nation. Clinton has won the Southern states and Sanders has won almost all of the rest.

In the general election, each state's electoral votes count all or nothing. So before that, in the convention, states which never give their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate should not get their convention votes counted equally to states which will. But they do, so we have to pretend that Bernie winning all but the South somehow makes Hillary the leading candidate.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Going in to Tuesday, public surveys showed Clinton with a prohibitive lead over Sanders in Michigan’s Democratic presidential primary. In the final week, public polls showed Clinton with leads between 11 and 37 points. The prediction website FiveThirtyEight gave Clinton a greater-than-99-percent chance of winning the state.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/5-pol...uesdays-election-results-220473#ixzz42Np5sEWn

 

[jlprk]

I saw those fake polls. Michigan is one of the most leftist states. How could Clinton possibly win over Sanders. Ridiculous. Tells you something about the corrupt politics there, with a supposedly cleanly-elected Republican governor appointing a dictator over each city abandoned by his corporate contributors, GM and Ford.

 

[Further]

The South is not the bellwether of the North, or of deciding the Democratic candidate for the whole nation. Clinton has won the Southern states and Sanders has won almost all of the rest.

In the general election, each state's electoral votes count all or nothing. So before that, in the convention, states which never give their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate should not get their convention votes counted equally to states which will. But they do, so we have to pretend that Bernie winning all but the South somehow makes Hillary the leading candidate.

If it weren't for the super delegates I would have some hope for Sanders going on a roll from here on. But as it stands, the cards are stacked pretty stiffly against the Bern.

 

[Further]

Allocated (Clinton to Sanders) 669 to 471
Total delegates (Clinton to Sanders) 1100 to 493

That's disgusting! It's going to keep me from being a Dem.

 

[jlprk]

Bernie has won almost all non-Southern states (the states whose electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate in the general election). Hillary has won all the Southern states (the states irrelevant to a Democrat winning the general election, since electoral votes are winner take all). If the media weren't covering it as, Hillary is inevitable, many superdelegates might change their minds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

 

[jlprk]

Allocated (Clinton to Sanders) 669 to 471
Total delegates (Clinton to Sanders) 1100 to 493

That's disgusting! It's going to keep me from being a Dem.

So you'll cut off your nose to spite your face. The Republicans on the board say, good man.

 

[Further]

So you'll cut off your nose to spite your face. The Republicans on the board say, good man.

Well, not being a Dem doesn't mean I don't vote for a Dem if I need to in order to keep a crappy republican from getting elected. I would vote Bernie if he made it. I would vote Hillary if it were down to her vs. either Cruz or Trump. If it were down to Hillary vs Kasich, I think I would either abstain or vote Kasich. The chances of that happening are slim to none though, so most likely I'll end up holding my nose and voting for Hillary. It's also not Hillary's fault that the system is rigged, she's just the benefactor. I like a lot of her policies, but that's partially because she has held every position at some point.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in 2012 (my first time voting). I registered as a democrat a couple months ago so I will be able to vote for Bernie. I'm still not decided on who I will vote for if Bernie doesn't recieve the nomination.

 

[Denny Crane]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ecking-the-hillary-clinton-email-controversy/

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I'm a Flint resident - ask me anything!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Allocated (Clinton to Sanders) 669 to 471
Total delegates (Clinton to Sanders) 1100 to 493

That's disgusting! It's going to keep me from being a Dem.

It is pretty outrageous. HOWEVER, I believe Hillary had a similar lead in Super Delegates over Obama in 2008, but once Obama started winning more primaries, the SDs re-committed. So these aren't final unchangeable allegiances to Hillary.

What does "being a Dem." amount to? Are you saying that, if faced with an election choice between Clinton and Trump, you'd refuse to vote Clinton because of this issue? That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[barfo]

It is pretty outrageous. HOWEVER, I believe Hillary had a similar lead in Super Delegates over Obama in 2008, but once Obama started winning more primaries, the SDs re-committed. So these aren't final unchangeable allegiances to Hillary.

What does "being a Dem." amount to? Are you saying that, if faced with an election choice between Clinton and Trump, you'd refuse to vote Clinton because of this issue? That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yes. The superdelegate count is really no more binding or meaningful than any pre-election poll - people are free to vote for whoever they want no matter what they tell the pollsters.

No need for outrage. Superdelegates are political animals, if Bernie is the people's choice, they'll switch. If he isn't, they won't.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes. The superdelegate count is really no more binding or meaningful than any pre-election poll - people are free to vote for whoever they want no matter what they tell the pollsters.

No need for outrage. Superdelegates are political animals, if Bernie is the people's choice, they'll switch. If he isn't, they won't.

barfo

543,008 / 72 = 7542.

One man, 7542 votes (e.g. super delegate).

That's how they do it in the politburo.

 

[barfo]

View attachment 8230

543,008 / 72 = 7542.

One man, 7542 votes (e.g. super delegate).

That's how they do it in the politburo.

I'm totally not sure what your point is. Are you saying there shouldn't be delegates at all? If they had a convention and nobody came, would it still be on TV?

barfo

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I'm totally not sure what your point is. Are you saying there shouldn't be delegates at all? If they had a convention and nobody came, would it still be on TV?

barfo

It'd be on CNN, but only because they have nothing else left.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm totally not sure what your point is. Are you saying there shouldn't be delegates at all? If they had a convention and nobody came, would it still be on TV?

barfo

Only in your party does one person get the vote equivalent to 7500 of the voters' votes.

Democracy means one man, one vote.

Undemocratic party means one man gets 7500 worth of votes for his vote. The super delegate that the people did not elect gets a vote worth 7500 actual voters' votes.

Why bother letting the people vote at all?

 

[barfo]

Only in your party does one person get the vote equivalent to 7500 of the voters' votes.

Democracy means one man, one vote.

Undemocratic party means one man gets 7500 worth of votes for his vote. The super delegate that the people did not elect gets a vote worth 7500 actual voters' votes.

Why bother letting the people vote at all?

Ah. Thank you for clarifying. You are correct, of course. However, you overstate the case, since about 90% of the delegates are chosen by the voters. And also, the superdelegates themselves were chosen by the voters (although not for that express purpose).

And maybe some party control isn't a bad thing, bet the Republicans wish they had superdelegates now.

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Ah. Thank you for clarifying. You are correct, of course. However, you overstate the case, since about 90% of the delegates are chosen by the voters. And also, the superdelegates themselves were chosen by the voters (although not for that express purpose).

And maybe some party control isn't a bad thing, bet the Republicans wish they had superdelegates now.

barfo

When/if Rubio/Kasich drop out of the race, those presently pledged to them will basically have superdelegate impact. They're basically free agents.

 

[Denny Crane]

When/if Rubio/Kasich drop out of the race, those presently pledged to them will basically have superdelegate impact. They're basically free agents.

I think they're bound through the 1st ballot at the convention.

The candidate might release them by asking them to support another candidate.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ah. Thank you for clarifying. You are correct, of course. However, you overstate the case, since about 90% of the delegates are chosen by the voters. And also, the superdelegates themselves were chosen by the voters (although not for that express purpose).

And maybe some party control isn't a bad thing, bet the Republicans wish they had superdelegates now.

barfo

Only the party should have control. Kill everyone who dissents. That's how your kind have operated all along.

 

[barfo]

Only the party should have control. Kill everyone who dissents. That's how your kind have operated all along.

That's the Party, not the party. Otherwise, correct.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

When/if Rubio/Kasich drop out of the race, those presently pledged to them will basically have superdelegate impact. They're basically free agents.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-11/republicans-new-target-the-pre-convention