RationalWiki talk:What is going on with the elections?/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 25 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>

, (new)(back)

murica

Can we have a title that doesn't assume that all readers/editors are US-Americans? Lots of countries will presumably have elections in the next year or so, but they won't get covered here: this is about the United States, and should say so. Americanness should not be the assumed default on the World-Wide Web. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

^ 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:07, 18 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

(eC) I didn't want content to be US-specific; I wanted it to in time be whatever/wherever was in season; Graham was just my testpiece. But eyh, do whatever, move/vaporise as you will; I was mostly just seeing how feasible Bicycle Wheel's suggestion would be for a pleb like me. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, the only non-US election we bother with much is the UK general election. Canada just had one and we didn't cover any of the buildup, just the result. So a strong US flavo(u)r isn't that big (of) a problem. Bicycle^wheel 19:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Shut up you commie Muslim! --Ymir (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've got no problem with a page dedicated to the US elections -- I just think it should be titled in such a way that doesn't assume an America-centric default setting for the website. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it isn't - unless I've been reading so much about American elections that I've become desensitised. It's a minor matter anyway. Bicycle^wheel 20:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a new page at all when there's already a 2016 U.S. Presidential Election blank page waiting to be filled? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

so we can have rolling news/comment here and a more considered/planned out article there. Also this pae isn't just for the Presidential election. There are always a few idiots in the senate elections. And in a year we can start looking forward to e.g the forthcoming EU referendum... Bicycle^wheel 21:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The last two WIGO:World entries as of now (world10983 & world10984) relate to elections in Venezuela & France, + there's one from a few days ago about a mayoral election in Salt Lake City. So I don't think the idea of using this WIGO for all election-related stuff anywhere has really caught on. Should we be actively moving entries here like we do when people post blogs/clogs stuff in World, or just let editors use/not use this page as they like? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Should this be on {{WIGO NAV}}?

Should it? And if so, would someone with tech rights add formatting for a wigonav-button-elect id to MediaWiki:Common.css (or give me the tools to do it, but that could be dangerous) (and I guess I must add the politics icon to File:Wigobuttons_inline2.png?)?

No. It's not active enough. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say nothing like active or important enough yet. The big WIGOs are our advertising to the world - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I expect this to slow down a lot after next November, so no, unless my prediction turns out to be wrong. Bicycle^wheel 12:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes! I didn't even know this existed until yesterday and I've been on here for several years now! I imagine it would be more popular if there were an obvious link to it. Ayzmo^Cheers 19:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rename

Actually, this WIGO isn't about the(?) elections but about the pre-election bruhaha. Any actual election news, e.g. who gets elected to run a nation for a couple years or reports about vote rigging, would be major enough that it should be posted on WIGO World in my honest opinion. So what should we change this WIGO's name to? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Personally I still think it would best as a 2016 US Presidential Election WIGO. Trying to cover all elections anywhere without covering other aspects of government & party politics seems an oddly arbitrary theme. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Weaseloid's suggestion is a good one. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The U.S. Primaries Begin

So the mayhem begins... jrussellwrites (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Most Voters want Socialism ?

The article in itself is interesting, but the fact that 55% of Tea Partiers (taking the numbers of the Vox article) also agree with the possibility of a "political revolution to redistribute wealth" kinda shows that no, what people might be agreeing with isn't socialism (can we just admit that Tea Partiers vomit socialism by their every orifice ?). I also changed the headline, because 54% of voters isn't "everyone" and it doesn't measure actual desire for such a revolution to happen. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And "socialism" isn't usually defined as "let's prop up the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie" - David Gerard (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I was trying to be a parody of Republican talking points about wealth redistribution equating (e.g. taxes) to socialism, but ended up more sensational.--Owlman (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible reason for US-centrism: Awfully long campaign season

I do understand the problem of the US centricism and that most of the elections covered here will probably be American ones, because of the composition of the RW userbase if nothing else, but there's another reason why at any given point in time US elections dominate the news. The US has an awfully long campaign season. Think about it. Which country has serious nationwide news networks speculate on who will be the candidate for president / prime minister two years before the actual election? Even the actual campaign (i.e. from first ballot to inauguration) is awfully long. Iowa happens in January of the election year. The general election happens in November and the inauguration is only held in January of the following year. Even "hung parliaments" in most of the European countries (well except for Belgium) don't take that long to come up with some sort of government (btw do we have an article on grand coalitions? They are rather common in some countries and have been said to have negative effects on democracy and its acceptance in the population at large). In most countries there are no more than two months of campaigning. Even if the candidate of one or several parties is elected by some form of popular vote this takes a couple of weeks tops (and often only the actual outcome is really covered). And once the election is done with (and everybody holds their "victory" speech) there is usually a government a few weeks later. Sure, arcane processes of allocating seats and other stuff do crop up in Europe as well (Schleswig Holstein had a parliament where the votes and the majority of seats were exactly inverted for three years), but it is usually a subject of interest to election geeks if that. There is not even an equivalent to fivethirtyeight in Europe that I would be aware of. Pizzameister (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Does Scalia's death change the whole ballgame?

I think it always was the bottom of the ninth with the score tied and two outs, but now the bases are loaded (Ok I will stop with sport metaphors). The important thing is: If the Scalia appointment really is blocked until November as the GOP vows to do, this could really become a political football and whoever runs the ball the best could score a lot of points on that. What do you think is most likely? An appointment along the normal route before November? Some tricks involving the lame duck days of the presidency and the new Congress? An appointment after January 20? And how do the Democrats handle the ball that they opposition just threw into their hands? Will they step into the circle or will they give it up for defensive play? Or will they get two minutes plus game for a stupid tactical foul? Anyway this is now sudden death. Pizzameister (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well since I doubt Obama will get the Senate to confirm any of his appointments US voters will be voting for the next President and next Supreme Court justice. So we now have a billionaire fascist vs Hispanic (Cuban) evangelical Christian and a woman who wants her family name to become a part of US history vs a Jewish man who calls himself a democratic socialist; as soon as either of these candidates become president they will immediately be able to determine whether the next Supreme Court is liberal or conservative. On top of this you have Trump and Sanders being populist, anti-establishment characters who oppose the Iraq war, big money in politics, and their own parties. So yes this is another big game changer with the only foreseeable thing bigger than this being the possibility that Hillary is indicted.--Owlman (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

So in short the only thing possibly bigger than this is a German team of nobodies no-one ever heard of beating one of the best teams in the world (Spain) by seven goals in the final? Btw, do you know of anybody who has a realistic shot at the nomination? Pizzameister (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This better not be about fucking handball again. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you have against Handball? Pizzameister (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It does show that Trump (glorious and exalted is he) is a better handball player than we expect. брэндэн (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Eh, call me once China's economy, the tech bubble, or the EU in general finally burst. Or all the tourists come back from Rio infected with Zika. Then the campaign will get really interesting (along with the entire rest of the world). --CoyoteSans (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Dibs on "zika - trump luxury edition" as the title for the next show on the trump network. брэндэн (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

In my mind this really puts the ball into the hands of centrists. I want a more moderate justice on the bench in the long-run. I don't want someone Cruz would pick (Roy Moore) and I'm not sure I want who Sanders would pick (dunno who to give as an example). Hillary and Jeb are (in my mind) more likely to nominate more centrist individuals. Mind you, Sanders won't be able to get someone who isn't moderate onto the court by virtue of the approval process, but Cruz could. I also think this plays into the Democrats' hands a bit. The fact that the GOP has flat out said they'll obstruct any Obama nomination says more about their hate for Obama than anything. They're already saying they're unwilling to consider a qualified, moderate candidate simply because he nominated them. Hillary and Sanders can run with that and hound them as obstructionists with their own words. It might also help get out the vote (though it will get conservatives who want to restore their majority on SCOTUS to vote in higher numbers as well). There's also the reality that the rest of the justices are already talking about how they need someone sooner than later, which looks bad for the GOP. It is a tough one, but I put it as a "win" for the Dems. Ayzmo^Cheers 19:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

A likely scenario

The SCOTUS appointment and email investigation are intertwined. When the FBI & prosecutors finish their investigation in coming days, ordinarily the prosecutors would move forward with an indictment if they allege criminal activity and intent. Because of potential "political implications", they likely will hand up the indictment to their boss, Loretta Lynch for review. Because of "political implications", the Attorney General will likely ask her boss to review the indictment. The President then will respond with either "Go ahead" or "deep six it". If the President does his job and allows the Justice Department to remain independent by moving ahead with an indictment, and he produces a consensus nominee using the traditional process, his SCOTUS appointment will sail through before election day. If the the President interferes and deep sixes prosecution, no nominee will be considered. nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 16:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why those two things would affect one another. Republicans have no incentive to move forward with a Supreme Court nominee regardless of what happens with indictment. What you're proposing is a backroom deal scenario and neither side has any incentive to participate in that. If they do return an indictment (quite a long shot, in my view), Republicans will get a double-whammy, no SCOTUS judge and it puts November in jeopardy for Democrats. Hentropy (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well Obama already tried to give them the Supreme Court by nominating a Tea Party Republican and they turned that down so I doubt they will agree to any nominee he puts forth.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Typically, or traditionally, the way Presidential appointments (Cabinet Secretaries, Undersecretaries, Agency & Commission heads, Federal Judges, etc.) requiring Senate concurrence to expedite the process are done is, lists are exchanged between the White House & Senate (say typically 10 names) with each side saying "anyone on this list is acceptable to us". Hopefully out of 10 or 20 candidates, one name will show up on both lists. In this case, as was reported, Obama asked McConnell & Grassley for suggestions and they refused, preferring to wait til later to provide a list. After Obama "does his job", i.e., not interfere in the Justice Department investigation, the Senate will be happy to "do its job" and move forward with a consensus candidate from both lists. I'm sure McConnell will even say something like, "I have full faith in the President's judgement" to explain the flip flop. If Obama were to deep six a Justice Department recommendation to prosecute, there is no way that it would not be leaked and everybody in Washington would know about it instantly. Remember, there really is no love lost between Obama and the Clinton's, there is a reason Obama ran against the "inevitable" Hillary in 2008, Bill Clinton himself blames Obama for the email leak in the first place, and without President Hillary Obama gets to play the role of Mitt Romney 4 years from now as chief spokesman for the party establishment. nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 16:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that Jeb dropped out

Who will I buy overpriced guac bowls from? The Copylefted User! (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders and Polls

Are we really going to make it news whenever Bernie Sanders leads in one poll? The fact is that, like it or not, Clinton is still leading in almost every poll nationally. It is closer than it was before, I suppose you can claim victory there, but to say he's "leading nationally" is a fabrication according to one poll by one agency. That "wouldn't vote" thing they do there also obscures things pretty heavily. Fox News also shows him ahead nationally, that should tell you a little something about who they want to be the nominee... Hentropy (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well Reuters isn't the only poll showing beating Clinton nationally and I think it is definitely notable that an independent is winning against an establishment candidate who has the backing of the party.--Owlman (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to link an article about Sanders' doing so well despite the odds, then go ahead. But the headline is misleading. He is not "leading Clinton in national polling." The truth is only a few polls show him ahead nationally, and national primary polls are largely meaningless anyway. These guidelines are helpful when trying to make sense of polls. It just reminds me of 2012 when Romney fans were clinging to hope because a smattering of outlier polls showed him ahead. Hentropy (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I realize that it was probably not the best to post stats that show him leading nationally since the SC primary hasn't even happened yet and a loss there might see a drop in support. I linked to it mostly because it was the first of three polls to show him leading, but I agree that my wording is misleading.--Owlman (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"infidelity notable" Lol, is that from autocorrect? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Yeah I do most of my editing on my Ipad.--Owlman (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Commentaries

Despite it being at the top of the page that commentaries and opinion pieces should not be on this page, there seems to be a lot of them. On a more general note, it seems to be like Sanders campaign headquarters up in here. When you got to the point where you're praising Donald Trump and calling him unstoppable in order to support Bernie, maybe you should start to reevaluate where you actually stand. I understand the site is mostly in the tank for Sanders at this point, but take a cue from his campaign and don't cannibalize what will likely be the Democratic nominee in a last-ditch attempt to propel him to the nomination. I'm not even a registered Democrat and probably wouldn't vote for Clinton in the primary even if I was, but this whole BernieBro "use Fox News' anti-Clinton playbook" is a little nauseating. Hentropy (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of those articles for this month don't appear to be opinion pieces or 'regular news'. The only one entry that appears to be an opinion piece is the one about Sanders being more electable then Clinton; it does, however, use statistics to support its claim, but it probably should've been a WIGO:Blog entry.--Owlman (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Commentaries and opinion pieces often use real news as their backdrop, but rather than reporting on it any neutral manner as a news article should, they provide opinions and commentary. For example, if you use contributions to Hillary's campaign from a Walmart exec to go on an anti-free trade diatribe. There's also the "Clinton is the War Machine Candidate" article which is pretty much all opinion. Opinions can be and should be backed up by some facts. While The Intercept article about news contributors being on the take can be considered original reporting (even if it stinks of Gamergate logic to me). Hentropy (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

After reading through some more I agree that a fair amount of those are commentary, but the reason I put them there was to show hypocrisy in her statements. I disagree that it is GG logic to point out that pundits who have worked with her have a bias. I also disagree that she will win against Trump or Cruz since independents hate her and Democrats aren't excited by her. It would be much better for the Republicans to win this election than to win in 2020 and Hillary would take the Democrats in a direction I oppose so I don't mind killing her support.--Owlman (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least you're honest about your intentions. Hentropy (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Look I am going to avoid posting commentaries from now on, but yes I have a clear bias.--Owlman (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Media: sanders is done - Basis in truth?

According to basically all media outlets (including both fivethirtyeight and MSNBC), Clinton cannot possibly lose the nomination at this point. Do you think this is realistic? Pizzameister (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A little, but not a lot. He still has a chance. If he can win in Michigan and score well in Ohio (a delegate-rich state), he has a good shot. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

He basically needs to not lose in any state from here on. Since he is running until the end he will be able to pick up many delegates; if he fails to make inroads with northern African Americans he will lose since he doesn't have a strong enough Latino American vote to win.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC) 03:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I think the media actually hyped Sanders quite a bit in the run up to and after the NH vote. Sanders got almost no attention early in the race, but it seemed to me like the media went kinda nuts after he won NH- treating it like a yuuuge win. Ignoring the fact that it's basically on his home turf. I think this inflated Bernie supporters' expectations, when in fact it was always going to be a tough, uphill climb for Bernie. To me, the death knell is Massachusetts... if Bernie can't even take every state in New England, that's kinda bad. The states he did win on Super Tuesday were three caucus states (where it's mostly activists, good for Bernie) and the OK primary... he can't win a state that is more diverse than your average CBS sitcom. I know Sanders fans don't like to hear it, but he has never had enough support outside the far-left mostly-white academic bubble, who are becoming more and more purist by the day, taking a page from the Tea Party and looking to purge the ranks of those pesky "centrists". Hentropy (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I of course disagree, but I do realize he is hindered by having only young white in his coalition. I think the idea that NH is "home turf" is dumb outside of name recognition since Hillary was a senator from NY and NH is much more libertarian than most New England states; I mean did Obama win Iowa because he was from IL. Also I wouldn't call his supporters far left since I have read enough articles from the far left to know they don't like him. The idea that the Democrats were simple centrists is rather oversimplistic and I know a lot of Trump supporters who hate the big business influence over the Republicans. The MA primary hurt, but he tied in delegates and stomped her in MN. Regardless, I think that brushing off his victory in OK is a load of crap since he was polling way behind Clinton last month. Lastly, her response to the BLM protestor in SC and her past racial record may hinder her efforts to gain the northern black vote.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 05:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What counts as "far-left" is dependent on one's perspective. He's the farthest-left candidate I have seen run for a major ticket as long as I've followed politics, and probably long before that. While the man himself has been gracious and non-combative, many of his supporters writing these scathing opinion articles are not so friendly, painting not just Clinton but anyone to the right of Warren as some kind of DINO who is no different from a Republican. These are transparent socialists or other far-leftists who are understandably excited about the prospect of a true believer running for President, but like the Tea Party, the country simply isn't at where they are at, and aren't going to be easily swayed there. All this "Bernie or Bust" mindset will do will ensure a Republican and perhaps the first proto-fascist into the White House over shit that happened 15-25 years ago. If you want to know why the Republican party is currently a trash can fire, it's because of these kinds of mindsets. I did not mean to "brush off" any of Sanders' victories- they are all legitimate and they are all worth delegates. He might very well go on to win more states in the plains states or the few left in New England. Sanders would have to sweep the midwest to catch up with Clinton. Everything is also proportional, so eking out wins won't work for him as much. When it comes to your Iowa example, a candidate from Chicago might be seen as more foreign to them, however a candidate from southern Illinois- along with other surrounding states- would have a leg up in Iowa. Vermont and NH and not the same state, no, but the Democratic bases are similar enough and they feel enough camaraderie that Sanders was always going to have an advantage there. When it comes to race issues, neither candidate has been lauded by the BLM, Bernie has had his own problems with them, as well as other black activists over reparations. Hillary Clinton is not winning blacks based on BLM support, however, and her widespread support among blacks is unlikely to change radically. Hentropy (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention Bernie needing to sweep the Midwest in order to win: in addition to Colorado and Oklahoma, he just won Kansas and Nebraska today. I'd say that's a pretty good turnout. Looking at the map, he's doing very well from relative point of view. Maybe even enough to shift the momentum. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I consider KS/NE/OK as more plains states than midwestern states, but what counts as a midwestern state is famously murky. KS and NE and good wins for him, but another big loss in LA offsets a lot of it mathematically, Clinton actually got slightly more pledged delegates overall (50 to 47). Michigan and the other "rust belt" states will be next true test for him, and then OH and IL on the 15th, there's a lot of delegates there and Sanders isn't doing well in the polls in any contest between now and the 15th, although there is an frustrating lack of recent polling in a lot of these states. If he does somehow turn the tide in such a short amount of time and win some of those states straight up, or if there is some sort of indictment bombshell, that's the only scenario in which he can win. And while I have no special FBI inside knowledge, I wouldn't put money on either scenario. Hentropy (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I hate using the political spectrum when I discuss politics, but the Democrats are a neoliberal party. I think most people who support Sanders are neo-Keynesians or contemporary socialists. I know I have said it before, but Clinton can't be reelected and Democrats need to hold in 2020 since it is a census year. I don't know why you believe the country is "centrist" when the Tea Party has been sweeping state legislatures and governorship since 2010 and will most likely keep the House in 2016.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 01:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Also the reason people associate the Dems and Repubs together is because they always join together on war and deregulation. Both parties are crony and both parties benefit from political corruption like gerrymandering. The Dems will never "change how the game is played"; if you need evidence of that just at Obama's presidency. This is why Clinton can't win because she doesn't get people excited to vote for her just like the party itself; the Democrats think their support is inelastic, but the voter turnout in 2014 proves it isn't. Even in Nevada and during Super Tuesday voter turnout was lowering than in 2012 and Democrats win when voter turnout is high.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 02:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Trying to crystal-ball what will happen in November is hard enough without having to try and crystal-ball 2020. Every four years we get the "most important election of our lifetime" spiel, usually from both parties. But I do disagree that this election is just throwable for either party. Democrats have not won three Presidential elections since the FDR-Truman era, and that was the only time they ever pulled it off. I think winning three in a row is very important, the GOP is already splintering and crumbling, losing yet another election, under any circumstances will force them down one of a few roads, none of them leading to very rosy places. Couple that with the opportunity to control the court for a generation with one guaranteed court pick and potentially many others, it has long-reaching implications. If you hate Citizen's United decision, then guaranteeing the court stays the same or gets more conservative has farther-reaching implications. 2020 will be a helpful year for Democrats in any case because it's a Presidential election year, higher turnout gives them the advantage. 2010 was disastrous partly because it was a midterm and was the Republican's to lose due the healthcare debacle. All that being said, the political situation in 2020 is likely to be very different from what it is now, but there are both immense immediate and long-term consequences if a Republican wins the White House this year, be it Trump or Rubio. 2020 will be more about the national mood and who wins state houses, the President isn't the one who does redistricting. Hentropy (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Polling shows independents don't want to vote for her and, historically speaking, no party has one 4 prez terms for centuries. Even though progressives (leftist) lose the court for 4 years it is likely that 2 to 3 SCOTUS judges retire or die between 2020-2024 which gives a massive advantage in court decisions. It absolutely matters who wins the presidency in 2020 because they usually carry candidates into the House, Senate, state legislatures, and governorship which Obama and Bush did. I truly believe whoever wins will inherit an economy that will either have crashed or will crash and Sanders is the only saying he will change the economy now; regardless of whoever wins they will not be reelected unless they are extremely progressive. Also I almost forgot, but you keep saying that progressives are being Jacobi, but the Democrats have been undercutting progressives for years.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 04:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Progressives (by the Bernie definition, at least) have been undercut for the same reason the Trump people have traditionally been undercut in the GOP. Their ideas are not that popular enough to win a national election, or to keep office. Few people outside the Democratic party or political wonkosphere even know who Sanders is and what he's about. However, I've seen enough Presidential elections to know how popular "tax raises" tend to be. And someone who suggests raising taxes on the middle class to pay for another big-government healthcare plan is not something I think will win people over in the general. This is why the "establishment" does not want him, the attack ads write themselves. He knows how to yell in his cute New England accent, but I'm not sure how well he will be able to weather the right-wing attack machine cranked up to 11. You're going to need more than Simon & Garfunkel for that. I don't honestly believe that Clinton has much of a principled political foundation, she's a shrewd operator and an opportunist, which is exactly the kind of person who wins reelection. The weenies who just happened to be "principled"- such as Carter and Bush Sr.- are the one-termers. Hentropy (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well that is very well put, but the party has supported the likes of Joe Lieberman and Rahm Emanuel even though they are unpopular with Democrats. The party didn't defend Russ Feingold or Kucinich and they oppose Alan Grayson's run for a Senate seat; the whole point of the Koch funded Democratic leadership council was to move the party to a more economically conservative position so they had to push out the progressives. I realize that Clinton brings in the financial ties to the party in order for them to pay for the expensive process of running in political races, but that is turn off to both Dems and Repubs. I know that there is a generally assumption that the progressive candidates will shepherd their base to the centrist, but this is a very different election. I disagree that principled candidates are always one-termers because both Reagan and HW raised taxes, but people saw Reagan as more principled. I have read about enough sex scandals to know people hate Dems who aren't principled, but those were very weak politicians. I believe that the Internet has fundamentally changed the American election process.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 06:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Look, Hentropy, I think I have been overly aggressive. The reason I am voting for Sanders is because I think he will steer the country to the left and avoid catastrophe, but I realize he isn't a deity so he can't do it alone; I won't vote for Clinton because I don't think she is electable so I will vote Green because they are closer to my interests. I agree that Trump must be stopped, but I don't see anyone actually beating him in the general election even if Sanders is the Dem nominee.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 03:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanders just won Maine by a large margin (29 points). He's one 3 out of 4 states in the past few days. As always the media will downplay it. He also had his best debate performance yet (in Michigan), hitting Hillary hard on multiple key issues. I hope Michigan will go for Sanders; this will sway voters in Ohio and Illinois. I am slightly pessimistic though. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Pb, but I thought he fumbled a lot. I think he cast doubt on Hillary's "progressiveness", but he let her get away on her racial record and economic cronyism. He lost his edge half way through by being to lenient. He also proved Rove's Law right.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC) 04:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hillary will win the black vote in a landslide no matter what; her husband may have locked up more black people than Reagan and Bush SR combined and gutted the welfare system, but hey, people often vote against their own interests. Trump has alienated hispanics. Most white women will vote for Hillary over Trump. So what demographic does Trump have? Not enough to win. Enough for the nom, but not the pres. CorruptUser (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, after Mona you're positively delightful, Owlman. As I said, I cannot vote in my state's primary (DE) even if I wanted to. If I had to vote, I'd probably vote my conscience, which would be Sanders. I don't think he's bad at all and I would support him if he ended up as the candidate. I just don't personally feel like Hillary would be some kind of horrible abomination, just as Obama was not the perfect progressive President, but he's still a lot better than the alternatives. I really don't think Trump has much of a chance, especially if he ends up fracturing the party and the Republicans end up throwing this one themselves, but that just may be optimistic thinking on my part. I also do think that the first female President would be a powerful symbol- I would have rather it been Warren, but the mere symbol of a feminist woman as the leader of the free world is a powerful one, and being told to wait longer and longer until we can get the perfect woman to run is getting frustrating. Hentropy (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the attachment to have a women become president especially after the ERA died so I won't tell anyone who is voting for her with that hope just as I wouldn't tell African Americans and Jews the same. I know that my idealism causes me to drive for possible political suicide, but I feel that there is a good enoughchance to change things instead of waiting for another disaster. My only problem with Trump being beat is that he has already created a base that may stay with the US for decades.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 13:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

He didn't create the base, it was always there. To say that he only appeals to arch conservatives is all kinds of wrong, especially since most of those are going with the boilerplate republicans, which made up 75% of them this cycle (Trump, Pataki, Carson, and Kasich, but Carson is boilerplate with brown paint). So you have all these Union boys; foul mouthed working class, high school educated, that have been screwed over for decades now by both parties. The republicans have been gutting workers rights, but the democrats have been even worse by allowing in tens of millions of unskilled workers; the H1B visa program is basically the same thing but to the middle class (when Disney has their workers train their foreign replacements, the company is lying when they say that they can't get good local workers). All this PC nonsense doesn't appeal to these people; what's politically correct now was once called spastic gay talk. Things like "safe spaces" and "micro aggressions" just make these people wonder if the current generation is turning the country into a nation of pansies. Along comes trump, who sounds like a union boy, and actually genuine instead of specially crafted by focus groups, in spite of it all being a crock. So yeah he's appealing, and the media promoted him, yes promoted him, to discredit the repubs. But the same features that the media thought were flaws to everyone were things that appealed to working class folks, and so Trump got his message out without paying a cent. But then the media realized that Trump had a shot, and went into overdrive to humiliate him. But that only made him more appealing; it was blatant manipulation, and every time someone pulled a godwins or obviously created a hatchet piece on him, it just made him that much more like able. StickySock (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Undeniably, but Trump has united and normalised his base and like I said the Dems thought that their support was inelastic.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 14:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's good that these people finally have a voice, even if it comes out of an overgrown anus. StickySock (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

These elections are so fucked up

If I were a Democrat, I'd be pissed at these superdelegate hijinks used against Sanders and probably stay home on voting day and get drunk or vote for Vermin Supreme for the lulz.
If I were a Republican, I would either stay home and get drunk on ('cause fuck this troll) or vote for Trump, 'cause he's a lesser shithead than the rest of the clown car.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great! Instead of everyone voicing their opinion, and working for change, just give up and whine about how things are screwed up not standing in the way of any of it. That's how we fix everything! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone can or wants to be a hero of the Internet.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 14:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If participating in the elections like a normal informed voter is being a hero on the internet...then I am willing and able to be that hero by doing at least the minimum level of effort. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You talk as if I discounted voting totally.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 15:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just extolled the virtues of not participating, or to a literal joke candidate not on the ballot, because it's "fucked up" unless it is for the one candidate you seem to hate the least. Which seems to be about the same thing Trump has already tried to dictate to voters. :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Which country has anything approaching primary elections (let alone open primaries) for their leaders? In some countries the government can change without so much as a vote from the people... Pizzameister (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I very well aware that one's countries "fucked up" is another country people's wildest dreams.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 17:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one thing to complain about the BS electoral college, but this is a party selection primary we're talking about here. Parties are under no duty, ethical or otherwise, to have elections to select their candidates. The party has every right to exert control over who gets selected. It's done because having elections is actually easier than the alternative, and produces less drama. Superdelegates are a bulwark against someone hijacking the process, Donald Trump style. 538 has pointed out that it would be easy to stop him under Democratic rules. Superdelegates can also switch allegiances any time, this happened in 2008 when they jumped ship from Clinton and hopped on the Obama train. Hentropy (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, just cause no-one's gonna go to jail for that, it becomes OK?! When the elections can be overridden by this superdelegates, they become a farce. What good are primary elections if they can be overridden if the party big wigs don't like the results?!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually the superdelegates were only peripheral to the case being made by fivethirtyeight. Proportional allocation of delegates (arguably the more democratic way) was much more important Pizzameister (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There are only so many superdelegates, you know. If someone is the clear choice and wins a solid consensus among Democrats, then the superdelegates cannot overturn it. Right now, I'm not sure what the problem is, the superdelegates are supporting to the candidate who has won more states, delegates, and overall votes. When that changes then you can complain about them subverting the people's will. Personally, I think the only "farce" is that Independents and freakin' Republicans can vote for the Democratic nominee in some states. I say this being a member of a third party. Hentropy (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Mainly people don't believe superdelegates should exist. Superdekegates can cayse a chilling effect because their vote us equal to 10,000 voters. I don't even see why suoerdelegates are a good udea since they will either vite based on the popular vote or they won't which risks splintering the base.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 18:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

One use for them could be what you saw in 2008: we had a very close race between two candidates, in both votes and delegates. By some counts, Clinton got more votes, but Obama was leading in pledged delegates. The superdelegates could be used as the "tiebreaker" to decide who would be better in their interests. Because of caucus systems around the country, who actually won the most "votes" is a bit of a thorny issue, anyway. The anxiety that the superdelegates will rob Sanders is largely based on nothing, the SDs have never robbed a candidate who has clearly won the contest before. As for another good reason to have them, well like I said, look at the Republican side, they're dealing with a hijacking and there's no Air Marshal. Hentropy (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Hijacking"? If the party wants it, then she shall get it, anything else would make the elections into a farce.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 21:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if they superdelegates have never stolen a nomination the potential to do so is still a problem just like the electoral college and they still create a chilling effect. In this scenario imagine a populist candidate doing well in polling, but members of the electoral college publicly state they will vote against them before the electoral college has even voted; this would cause that candidates base to not vote for them. Also parties change all the time in US history and it is crucial that this happens since the Dems and Repubs are the US's main parties; also one could say the Clinton's "hijacked" the Dems.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 21:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't use the term "hijacked" lightly, Trump was decidedly not a Republican before he wanted to run for President, he's a complete outsider coming into the nomination process with the expressed purpose of undermining the party. It's not simply a matter of being out of the "mainstream" or "populist" or whatever. Cruz is not a hijacker, he's just wants to push the party to the right, just as Sanders wants to push it the left. Trump is trying to run what is effectively a third-party candidacy on a major ticket, which is exactly what can happen if the parties have no way to control their nomination process. Bill Clinton moved the party to the center, and only after they lost three straight Presidential elections. Hentropy (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I can agree that Trump is using entryism in order to take over the party, but one could accuse Sanders of the same thing since he only caucused with them. Also I believe a party doesn't have to recognize you as a candidate in the US which is why the cranks aren't on the Dems' tickets so the Republicans have allowed this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think most of Sanders' support comes from people who have been with the Democratic coalition for as long as they could, for younger people that's not very long. He's attracting some new people, but I don't think he's hijacking anything. In any case, the cranks aren't on the Dems' side because they won't win there, and if they tried to do it they would get blocked out by these failsafe measures, like superdelegates and totally proportional allocation. The GOP no doubt brought Trump on themselves, in ways that have nothing to do with the primary process. Hentropy (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well if the Dems are really so concerned about a whackjob taking over they should institute a list system which would allow the party to have more sway on who can win the nomination, but wouldn't risk significantly usurping the base's power. Also I wasn't saying Sanders was hijacking, but he wasn't a registered Dem so giving the party the ability to eject outsiders is problematic.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC) 04:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to win the general election, you will need support from independents. And you do remember the "Reagan Democrats", don't you? I say, let's have open primaries prescribed by law. Pizzameister (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The parties are private entities at the end of the day. If the parties want to hurt/help themselves with internal rules, that is up to them. Mandating it would only strengthen the two-party system, not weaken it. Hentropy (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Some states actually have rules for state primaries in their state laws or even the constitution. New Hampshire even has the "first in the nation" thing written into its state constitution... Pizzameister (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

And the fact that governments, who have members of both parties in them, want this to happen should be a good indicator of what they think of it. Hentropy (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Both Iowa and New Hampshire measurably and objectively benefit from being first in the nation. Iowa gets its corn subsidies and New Hampshire gets some pork that it is probably better able to hide. That's the same reason why it makes sense to vote for tattering fools like Timbuktu Byrd if they are high-ranking enough to steer pork your way. Due to the federal nature of the US, pork is not a bug, it's a feature. Pizzameister (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer some kind of shuffle system in order to have different states voting at different times every primary election.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC) 18:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Good luck trying to get that proposal accepted by New Hampshire and Iowa. For the other states there already is some kind of shuffle system. The Democrats for example give bonus delegates to later states, and super Tuesday is never the same states... Pizzameister (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Just make it a federal law that every state gets a chance at being the first state to choose a prez nominee.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC) 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Iowa has a better record of forecasting or picking nominees, meaning it's more representative of the nation. New Hampshire tends to reflect regionalism and doesn't like Southerners and Southern accents. nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 18:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Well on the whole, Southerners and Southern accents have rarely been good for the country... Pizzameister (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Iowa hasn't predicted any candidate for the Repubs for some time.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC) 19:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

New Hampshire has voted for the candidate that eventually became the Republican nominee in the past four election cycles. And if you ignore McCain (2000) and Buchanan (1996), they've consistently selected the nominee since Nixon in '68. Not a bad track record. Iowa, on the other hand, hasn't gotten it right since W ran unopposed in '04. Since 2008 they've consistently picked whoever seemed like the strongest and most viable evangelical: Huckabee in '08, Santorum in '12, and Cruz in '16. On the Democratic side, one state isn't really all that much better at predicting than the other. New Hampshire's only major "mis-pick" thus far in the past couple decades was Hillary over Obama in 2008.--OverworldTheme (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Kansas has a 100% track record for the Dems since forever. Pizzameister (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What's the Matter with Kansas. nobs^{Dump Trump} 02:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Tuesday Primaries

It's a big day in the election. Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Florida, and North Carolina are all up for grabs on both the Democratic and Republican sides. I predict Sanders will win Missouri and Illinois. Ohio will be very close, and I'd put my money on Sanders, but I'm not sure. Hillary will of course sweep North Carolina and Florida, picking up more delegates than Bernie in total. For the Republicans, Trump will win Florida, forcing Rubio out of the race. Trump will also win North Carolina, Missouri, and Illinois. I predict Kasich will win Ohio by a narrow margin, cementing him as a hopeless establishment candidate. Trump will hit Kasich hard over this, and Kasich will probably falter after this. Trump seems basically inevitable to me after this. I feel Sanders will still be in the race after tonight unless Clinton can win Ohio and Illinois. Please discuss. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am going to be extremely optimistic and say Sanders wins every single state on Tuesday. I also think Trump will win in Illinois, Florida, and Ohio which will make Trump unstoppable at that point. Ted Cruz will win Missouri and North Carolina though.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 00:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that Hillary has been winning mostly in the South, thanks to its large african-american population that overwhelminly supports her, but she's not that popular amongst white liberals and especially the youth. This electorate dominates delegates-rich states such as North Carolina (121), Illinois (182), and Ohio (160) who are to vote in this primary, although I expect Hillary to win in Florida thanks to its growing Hispanic community. Also, considering what happened in Michigan (a white-majority state), he's going to win big unless I am reading his support base wrong. Plus there's other delegates-rich states that are white-majority later on like California (548), Illinois (156), Pennsylvania (210) and New York (291) Tuxer (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel like Sanders will only win Missouri and even that's looking like a tossup. Trump will win Florida and North Carolina comfortably, causing Rubio to drop out, while Cruz will win Missouri and Kasich will win Ohio, making it very unlikely for Trump to reach a majority of delegates. Illinois is a mystery, but I think I see Cruz as a slight favourite, depends on how much the votes splinter. Vulpius (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanders is closer to Clinton in the polls in Illinois and Ohio than he was in Michigan, and he won that state by 2 points. He should win at least Illinois. The actual polls for Illinois have them neck-and-neck. Ohio not so much, but that's still a really close margin that is closer than Michigan and in a state that is pretty white and blue-collar union-type. To Owlman: you're pretty optimistic. Allow me to crush that optimism by showing you the polls, the closest of which has Hillary with a 19=point lead. If he won that state, I'd be as shocked as a lightning rod. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Which state?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 02:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me. I forgot the link. It's there now, and here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/north-carolina-democratic/ North Carolina. It clearly shows Hillary with a lead about what it was in Michigan. Difference is blacks make up 22% of NC's population, and only 14% in Michigan. Hillary has a lead already because of that. The polls average a 20-25 point lead. That's basically insurmountable. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well besides him closing the gap in Illnois and Ohio he has also closed the gap in Missouri so it wouldn't surprise me if he won in NC. He may also win FL since many Puerto Ricans have recently moved there and Sanders has recently stressed how he plans to fix the debt crisis there; Nevada showed that Hillary doesn't have the strong Hispanic vote it was assumed she had especially among younger voters.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 03:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You're being too optimistic about Florida, man. But onward. New polling! Public Policy Polling, the group that had Bernie behind 10 points in Michigan, have him ahead 1 point in Missouri, behind 3 points in Illinois, and behind 5 points in Ohio. He's behind 25 in Florida and 19 in North Carolina.

Here are my final predictions:

• Missouri: Sanders by several points
• Illinois: Sanders by a couple of points
• Ohio: Sanders by less than a point
• North Carolina: Clinton by ~20 points
• Florida: Clinton by ~30 points

I predict the media will portray this as a phyrric victory for Sanders, as Clinton will score more delegates, though not by much. Assuming my predictions are correct, Sanders will campaign hard in the West and win a string of nearly-uninterrupted close victories in small States like Idaho, Utah, Washington, ans Alaska; and possibly even Arizona and Hawaii. This should be enough to put him in a virtual tie. To summarize: tonight's the night. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I am a betting man.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 03:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you misgauge Sanders' possible appeal with Latinos. True, Cubans (which are quite a factor in Florida) will break for Hillary 90-10 or even higher, but many Cubas will vote in the GOP primary (for Rubio or Cruz, because both are hawks) and even MSNBC recently had an article on how young Latinos convince their parents of voting Sanders... Pizzameister (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well young Cubans are more liberal than their predecessors and Puerto Ricans rival Cubans in the Hispanic vote; Sanders does well with young voters and I don't think Clinton has convinced Puerto Ricans to vote for her.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Does either candidate have a stance on statehood independence or any other option for Puerto Rico? Pizzameister (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well Clinton only mentions debt maintenance while Sanders plan involves Puerto Rican self-determination and a shuft to green energy. I believe Sanders has been more visible on this issue, but he hasn't stressed it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 18:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, my Florida prediction seems to be spot on with 44% reporting. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't exactly surprise me, but it does disappoint me.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 00:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump just won Florida. Rubio is done. I think he'll leave very soon. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just gave his concession speech. He mentioned god about five hundred times and dropped out. Let's hope Kasich siphons the remaining Rubio vote... And let's hope Trump and Cruz can be stopped. Or maybe, one of them wins and gets beaten badly by Sanders/Clinton Pizzameister (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Clinton has won NC.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 00:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

She has also won in Ohio.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 00:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As of right now, I hereby predict that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. I don't understand. He was doing so well in the polls. Why are people coming out in droves and voting for Hillary if she's the presumptive nominee? If you think she'll win, why even vote in the primary anyway? God. Hillary might sweep the floor and end Sander's campaign today. Also, it looks like Kasich has Ohio. This is a nonlethal blow to Trump's credibility (as if he ever had any) but is unlikely to stop him from winning the presidency. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the Republican convention is in Cleveland and not some other place may suddenly become very important... Pizzameister (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't call it yet since there are still a lot of delegates to be won in MO and IL; as long as he retains momentum in the mountain and big (NY, CA) states he can win, but his disappointing lose in OH may kill his potential momentum.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 01:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Without Ohio, Trump has to win 60% of the remaining Republican delegates to get the nomination. He's not going to. It'll go to the convention, the party leadership will deny him the nomination, and Trump supporters will probably riot. The Sixties are back, baby! --Ymir (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but who's gonna do the rioting? Cleveland and Ohio just overwhelmingly went for Kasich. I can't think that many Trump supporters will fly to Cleveland just to make a ruckus. And Democrats have better things to do than that. Now if the compromise candidate they end up chosing is neither Trump nor Kasich nor Cruz, that could lead to rioting... Pizzameister (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"I can't think that many Trump supporters will fly to Cleveland just to make a ruckus." You don't think Trump is going to call on his supporters to come to the convention if it's contested? Heck, he might pay their airfare. --Ymir (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well this night may have been a disaster for Sanders momentum; now his still walks away with many delegates and the delegate count matters in the Dems election since they are awarded proportionally, but his polling in later states may subside. Those later states are delegate rich and the mountain states don't like Clinton; Obama won many of those states, but he also won the black belt so don't be overly optimistic. Now I will still vote for him and I am ready to vote Green in the general election.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 05:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just remember the last time many people voted Green because they didn't like the Democratic nominee. At a certain point, yes, it does become about the lesser of two evils. Anyone who things Al Gore would have been the same or worse than Bush after 9/11 is delusional. But if you don't live in a swing state it hardly matters anyway. Hentropy (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

To add to that, I can't exactly lecture someone for voting third party, as I did so myself in the last two elections. Ever since the Green Party nominated a freaking 9/11 denier as their candidate, however, it's harder to support them. Third parties have become havens and magnets for conspiracy theorists. Nader was at least reasonable and not off the deep end. Hentropy (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am okay with Trump winning over Hillary since I think he is too politically unsavvy to actual destroy democracy and there would be enough push back to slow his policies; I think the US will learn from its mistakes like it did with Bush. Four more years of the same or worse would destroy the Dems since Trump has built a base that is prone to fascist beliefs and can easily be called on by someone who is politically savvy like Nixon and Reagan did with Goldwater's base. Clinton will send us into more wars and will cut the social welfare state just like Obama attempted to. I am only voting for Jill Stein, but I have no intention to become a party member because of their stance on nuclear energy and GMOs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 13:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

the above post is the epitome of 'cut off your nose to spite your face'. Though in this case, there is quite a substantial number of people likely to be fucked over in 'just 4 years' if trump does even half the things he saiys he will do. But hilary really is a bitch i guess. Glad i'm a UKerAMassiveGay (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well my fear with Hillary is that since she has so much power within the party she can pass all the right-wing policies passed; I think that the progressive wing of the Dems would be more vocally opposed to a Republican's agenda than to Clinton's since she can threaten their careers within the party. Obviously, in the short-term Hillary's "don't change the status quo" policy is better, but in the long-term Trump has created a dangerous coalition which Clinton will be unable to destroy before 2020.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 21:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My source in Scientology has said that the cult pressured the Sea Org workers to vote trump in the Florida primary. ExScientologist (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Otherwise what would the Church gain from supporting him?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 06:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

An old friend who is still in the SO, I don't know what they would gain from it, maybe laxer religious regulations under trump. ExScientologist (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Scientology simply backs the most successful, non-fundamentalist Christian in the race, betting he will be more amenable to their views than the likely alternatives? As a sort of "least bad option" for their cause. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump will build a wall to keep thetans out, and make Xenu pay for it! --Ymir (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well they may support Trump's push for harsher libel laws.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 13:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Rubio has dropped out - but who will he endorse?

Rubio's loss in Florida and exit from the clown car race was far from unexpected, but that leaves the question of his endorsement and, more importantly, whom his delegates will rally behind. An endorsement of Cruz will reveal Rubio's "I'm the moderate candidate"-shtick as the sham facade it really is, but would put Cruz very close to Trump in terms of delegates (if they do indeed swing behind Joffrey Cruz). An endorsement which would better fit the "Mr. Moderate"-narrative would be to back Kasich, but that would simply even the current three- way split of the GOP vote and not introduce any clear anti-Trump momentum. Gotta love it... ScepticWombat (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The money's obviously on Kasich, he told his voters to go to him in Ohio, which may have put him over the top there. If he wants to pursue a strategy of a brokered convention, he could not only endorse Kasich, but actively campaign with him, trying to do all they can to win the northern and western states. He might look to just disappear for a while, endorse no one and keep his head down for the entire season- losing FL was embarrassing and if he endorses or campaigns for Kasich he might end up hurting him with a certain loser stink, that Trump will no doubt bring up like a schoolyard bully that he is. Him endorsing Cruz is the least likely scenario, I think. Hentropy (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with a Cruz endorsement. I can't see Rubio endorsing Trump in any scenario, they've disagreed too much. Kasich would be reasonable, but, despite Rubio's claims to the contrary, he's never been a centrist. His views are much further to the right than Kasich and I just don't see it happening. His Ohio endorsement was a practical matter of "anyone but Trump" and was isolated to Ohio because of Kasich's popularity and inevitable win there. Cruz is the best "anyone but Trump" candidate outside of a brokered convention. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz would be the obvious choice since the GOP will likely try to combine them on one ticket in a brokered convention.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 13:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My point wasn't that Rubio was or is a centrist, but that he has played the "I'm the establishment candidate"-card incessantly which would suggest an endorsement of Kasich, since the GOP establishment only loathes Cruz a little less than Trump. The logic would be to use Kasich as leverage against Cruz to avoid him getting too much bargaining power as the sole alternative to Trump. The risk would of course be a fragmented anti-Trump vote that would be extremely dicey due to the weighting of delegates in favour of the winner in several GOP primaries and Trump being the likely top dog, winning pluralities in three way contests against Cruz and Kasich. I'm betting the GOP party machinery is bitterly regretting not going with a strictly proportional allocation of delegates. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

^Basically this. It's not even really about ideology at this point, it's about strategy. Splitting delegates three ways in the remaining proportional states would be more helpful than splitting it two ways. If I am the RNC, and my priority is winning the election, I am MORE afraid of Cruz getting the nomination, he is so much easier to beat, what with his 17% sales tax and a litany of other unpopular ideas even among Republicans. If you're the Republican Establishment, the problem with Trump is less that he can't win, and more that you can't control him at all. That scares them much more than simply losing the upcoming election, I think, but if the election can be salvaged they'll want to find some way to do that. Hentropy (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Rubio is a centrist talking rightist (no, really, look at the actual votes he made, as few as they were), whereas Kasich is a rightist (on abortion, on tax cuts, on pretty much any relevant decision an Ohio governor gets to make) talking centrist (and hugging people at the mall). They are a marriage made in heaven and if it goes to a brokered convention, their ticket looks exceedingly likely. Pizzameister (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Republican race: Brokered convention or Trump?

I think after the results are in and Trump won everything except Ohio (where he was never going to win), it's safe to assume that none of the remaining candidates except Trump can get to the magic number of delegates (twelve something, wasn't it?). Kasich just hasn't enough delegates, even if you somehow magically add Rubio's, plus it's not even sure he is on the ballot in all remaining states. The map for Cruz looks dire, as most evangelicals have already voted and he has little strength outside of that group. Trump could still run away with it, but so far he has had trouble in races where there was one clear "not Trump" candidate and with only three candidates left running, such races will become likelier. I say Trump will make it with something between 60 and 70 percent likeliness whereas a brokered convention is the remaining percents and any other outcome gets one or less percent. What do you think? Pizzameister (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There are still many proportional and hybrid states left, plenty of opportunity to split the vote in a three-way race. However, if things keep going the way they've been going for Trump, even if he continues picking up pluralities, he'll still have enough to secure the nomination. However, if they broker the convention specifically to deny Trump the nomination, then he will split. So it's really a question as to whether or not they're okay with throwing the election this time around. The best of all outcomes, beating Trump in a fair fight and getting someone more moderate at the convention is unlikely to happen now. Even if Trump were to be arrested for something, Ted Cruz would likely get most of his voters and the Republicans would still be facing a problem with an ultra-right candidate that wants a sales tax and to hire the Kurds as our "invasion force" and not knowing what cluster bombing is. Hentropy (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most of the "proportional" states winner take all by district? And if Illinois is any indicator, Trump knows how to run up the score in Dem safe seats to win delegates at the district level even in states he might not win or not by such a big margin... Pizzameister (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This is true, many states have weird hybrid systems. Republicans don't want their nomination contests to last that long, really, and that favors Trump heavily. Kasich and Cruz can still conceivably peel enough delegates away in the remaining states if it is a three-man race, however it is going to be an uphill climb to do so. Trump is already turtling up now that he has a commanding lead (probably not going to do any more debates), hoping to simply coast through the remaining states, but that could backfire badly on him, or do nothing. Hentropy (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump is done for after Wisconsin. He can't win. The party will not let him win. All that remains is a face-saving way out. He is thru and he knows it. He got into the game not knoiwing the rules. Only now, when it's too late, he begins reading the rule book. The party tried negotiatting with him, but he would not listen. Now it is too late to walk back all the errors. He & the media will pretend New York is a big comeback, but it's home turf, and written off by the GOP a longtime ago. He's finished. nobs^{Dump Trump} 02:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Democratic race: The 60:40 gamble

So after the Ides of March, which really went in Hillary's favor, no sugarcoating it for Sanders, Sanders needs about a 60:40 split in the remaining states up until California and New York, and then those states will decide the election. I think he has good chances of winning New York and California, given that he was born in Brooklyn (Clinton might be seen as a Carpetbagger, even though she was a Senator for the state) and California really mostly depends on the Latino vote, which thus far mostly went as the rest of the states (i.e. more Hillary in Hillary states and more Sanders in Sanders states). Given that the rest of the map looks favorable to Sanders on demographics, I have no doubt that he can win some of the remaining states, but given the rules for delegate allocation of the Democratic party (in short almost 100% proportional with a 15% threshold and some weird stuff about Congressional districts) he will have to do more than squeakers if he wants to have a chance. I think much will become apparent with the March 22 states (Arizona, Utah and Idaho), where he must win. If he manages to beat Hillary 60:40 or better, the race is wide open. If Hillary wins, she has the thing locked up. If there are squeakers, Sanders is just about as alive as the Spanish Handball team was in the second half of the final of the European Championship. And we all know how that ended.... Pizzameister (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Relying on California is problematic, it's almost last to vote and by then it is unlikely to be close enough to decide it, considering it is proportional. Even taking an extremely optimistic view for Sanders going forward, I think the only way he has a chance is if Clinton is indicted and he starts running unopposed. The only states he has been shown to do well in is the wide-open western states, and there's just not enough there, even if he captures all of their delegates. He already won the biggest ones out there (KS and CO). Sanders has also not won much at or about 60%, the wins he does have tend to be close. Sanders' big advantages so far has been the caucuses, open primaries, and while it's awkward for them to admit, near-all-white states. I'm still not entirely sure what happened in Michigan, but I think it's clear now that whatever happened there is not going to be trend. The chances that Sanders is able to pull out a 60% win in a state like New York, which is a closed, diverse primary, are quite slim. Hentropy (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanders off the Ballot

No he's not. Really, this is the sort of badly researched, sensationalist, conspiracy theory that this site should be showing up as idiocy, not championing. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Source: Fox News. It's confirmed, you can't reason with a Berniebot. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do people even take Faux Noise seriously any more? Pizzameister (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do people take any of the American right wing news outlets seriously? Anyways, this was just a bureaucratic mistake and there are still several ways for him to get on the ballot and anyone can write him in on the ballot.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 12:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

And yet 11 people here upvoted the story :/ rpeh •T•C•E• 13:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Because they expect dirty tricks in an election?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 13:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton would never do that. She is one of the last Goldwater Republicans. Pizzameister (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sanders' NYDN Interview

Mostly, I'm talking about the part of the interview everyone seems to be pointing to:

• Daily News: If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

• Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

• Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

• Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision.
• ----
• Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

• Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

• Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

And it goes on like that. Come on Bernie, this is a classic Donald Trump answer. He says the banks are going to be broken up, but it's going to be up to them how to do it, but they're definitely going to be broken up, even though he has no authority to do that, but they're definitely going to be broken up... this is not taken out of context, it's fairly clear that Sanders is just spouting rhetoric with no true understanding of how that might actually work in the real world. I do applaud the NYDN for pressing on this line of questioning. I do believe the banks should be broken up- but it's also fairly clear that doing it will require some exertion of force. It reminds me of "self-deportation." Hentropy (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That is the main reason I posted it. I have been following Clinton's and Sander's campaign so I think I can say with convinced that he is afraid of being a "leader". All of his slogans and speeches have concentrated on the individuals supporting him and not his past experience. Ironically, I think he is afraid of being labeled as power hungry like Obama has been when Obama has used executive orders.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 13:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be the best breakdown of his proposal. Now the NY Daily did a hatchet job by framing their questions the way they did, but I digress. Sanders wasn't ready and got caught in circular reasoning.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 04:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a damn shame, too. He's by far the best candidate running, and he'd be the best president since Roosevelt. It would've been preferable if he'd had a cogent, detailed response prepared in advance. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I blame it on becoming frustrated over the terrible line of questioning, but, yeah, this looks bad. Though this interview was such a hatchet job the NYT wrote about how bad it was.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 05:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no terrible line of questioning. Whining about the mean old media asking you unfair questions when you're freaking running for President is a Palin/Trump maneuver. I wouldn't say the Daily News were perfect in the way they asked the questions, but the substance of the questions were fair. He's made breaking up and depowering banks a centerpiece of his campaign, this should not be a difficult line of questioning. He should be able to explain to anyone exactly how he's going to do it, and if he's afraid of coming off a certain way, it's only going to get worse if he does win the nomination. Clinton is running a cupcake campaign against him compared to what the Republicans will do. Of course Sanders apologists are going to circle the wagons and try to handwave a terrible answer on a single mixup of the Fed and Treasury by the NYDN. Hentropy (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Asking about how Apple is destroying the moral fabric of America is unrelated to a topic on breaking up the banks. Hillary and Barney Frank agree that the president has the ability to break up the banks through the Dodd-Frank law so bringing up whether the Fed has that ability is irrelevant. Even the NYT agrees he knew what he was talking about and Paul Krugman, who writes for them, has written columns against his policies. Asking him about where he would interrogate terrorist w/o describing the scenario is a setup. Asking about drone policy is ambiguous since no one, but the President and his cabinet know about the effectiveness of drones. They also lie about the CIA no longer having the ability to use drones. Asking him to cite specific statutes is dumb because no one reading or reporting is going to know or care about the specific statutes. They accuse him of changing the US's position on Israeli settlements, but that is a flat out lie since the US has always held them as illegal. They also ran on their front page "Sanders shame on Newton" accusing him of causing the shooting by voting in favor of lawsuit protection for gun manufactureres. Then they pull a Dukakis question by asking him if he would execute KSM, who perpetrated 9/11, which is a clear appeal to emotion. Meanwhile, Trump wants to defund the "Department of Environmental" so there is an obvious difference. Now you can still criticize Sanders on his reluctance to talk about foreign policy, his views on gun control, and how he is generally unprepared to talk, but this was a hatchet job.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Daily News is a well-known sensationalist tabloid, if he didn't know that before he gave the interview, then it's his own fault. The issue here is that the media has not really pressed on specifics from any candidate on either side, Sanders included, because they're more obsessed with the horse race and time constraints that they drop questions after the candidate fails to answer them twice. Unfortunately, it seems "hatchet jobs" are the only way to get candidates to answer real, tough questions that just don't setup stump speeches ("Tell us why you don't like the banks?"). Sanders sells himself as a principled, fiery, populist fighter that actually knows what he's talking about, unlike Trump. It's clear when asked about the banks, he also tried to deflect away from specifics and tried to launch into his focus-tested campaign points. He said he didn't want to "force" them because he's not a dictator- but that's exactly what both him and Clinton say they want to do by invoking Dodd-Frank. Force them. If he's more concerned with how it sounds, then that undercuts his principled stances. It's the same on foreign policy, he doesn't want to piss off his college cult, so he always launches into broad strokes and never on specifics about Israel and mideast policy. I don't envy him for that now, finding a consistent foreign policy position that satisfies both liberal Democrats and then later centrists is difficult, but he's going to have to come to form on that very quickly as well. Hentropy (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Just because it is a tabloid doesn't mean that have to make a hatchet job, but I wouldn't expect any less from a tabloid. I agree with your criticisms, but what I disagreed was that there was no terrible line of questioning.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 00:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Another example, and a good one, of trying to make a policy out of a catch phrase. "To big to fail is to big to exist." If someone really believes that, the time to let it fail was then, not taking a meat axe to vital ongoing, people employing, service providing, tax paying enterprise now.nobs^{Dump Trump} 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hentropy, you don't support Hillary over Bernie do you? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a registered Democrat and don't really "support" either candidate with my whole heart. I would vote for either one against a Trump or a Cruz, of course. Elizabeth Warren would have been the best candidate by far, I think. I was a, let's just say rather left-wing individual at one time, so Bernie's socialist shtick isn't as novel or interesting to me as it is with others. He invokes Europe, which builds all its social programs on the back of capitalism and banks, but his proscriptions are much more old-school and "Latin American", all about blaming the banks and corporations for everything like Trump blames immigrants and Muslims. I'm not a huge fan of populism in general, at best it ends up like Obama, with many people disillusioned when they cannot deliver on a fraction of what they promised, and at worst it... well, you know. I don't really love much about Hillary, but she's durable, she's had Presidential-levels of scrutiny for 25 years, where Bernie has yet to have a true attack ad ran against him. I personally don't think having a true poll-driven President who is unafraid to change positions is a horrible thing, it might just cause the Democrats to win a mid-term election for once. I also don't think having a feminist, female President would be the worst thing in the world. Hentropy (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren backing Wall Street Hillary exposed Elizabeth Warren as the fraud and sham Elizabeth Warren is. nobs^{Dump Trump} 02:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, so are you rooting for Kasich or Sanders?--CorruptUser (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I see a Hillary/Sanders ticket right now. Personally I kinda like Cruz, but Kasich seems the most acceptable to everyone right now. nobs^{Dump Trump} 19:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't dislike flexibility, but se will literally say anything if given enough money. Hell, she was a "pro-gun, churchgoer" in '08. I prefer Latin American socialism over its European counterpart since it has mostly dwindled there and has accepted neoliberalism, but I digress.

Obama had Congress back in '08, but he didn't use it to pass anything substantive and has instead been an old-style Republican; Hillary would bring the same, but she would be more militaristic and even less transparent. I doubt she would help the increase votes, but I know nothing will change for my state unless someone can inspire a grassroots movement here. Sorry if I come off as a little heated, but I have been arguing with a far-right family member who found out I support Sanders.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 00:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's where there's a fundamental misunderstanding with Hillary, the idea that she's an unapologetic "warhawk". She's for war when it's popular. She was for the Iraq War when it was popular, then turned against it when it wasn't. There was fairly wide support for our intervention in Libya at the time, which was why both she and Obama did it. A true, principled hawk would support these measures to their fullest regardless of polls, and we have no shortage of them to point to, the McCain-Graham duo being the most vocal. If the public is clearly against further intervention in Syria, then you can guess where Hillary stands on that issue. You can of course criticize her for this, but I think it's rather obvious she has no clear, principled ideology when it comes to foreign intervention. As for guns, there are plenty of gun control advocates who say they are "pro-gun" or "pro-second amendment" (Biden still managed to color himself as "pro-gun" while supporting the banning of assault rifles, this was a pretty common tactic among Dems at the time), but it is a great illustration: Hillary tried to focus on the whiter, older demographics and that's why she said that. She takes money from big banks because they're willing to give it to her, and that's what it takes to get by in a huge and grueling political battlefield of New York, any port in a storm.Hentropy (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Arizona

I am surprised that Clinton is suing Arizona since she didn't have to since she won (not to say she caused the problem, but it may have helped her campaign). I am curious, though, what will happen to the results if they prove that voting rights were infinged; will Arizona have to revote or do they just not count it?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 12:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It would largely be up to the DNC as to what they would want to do. It also depends on the exact ruling, if it was considered an isolated problem in a few particular voting places, or whether it was a statewide problem. Strategically, Clinton doesn't really need Arizona, she didn't win huge there (netting only 14 delegates more than Sanders) so even if all the delegates become invalidated or the results would retroactively go to Sanders (both somewhat unlikely), it wouldn't hurt her much. One could even make the argument Clinton was actually hurt more than Sanders, I'm not familiar with the exact details but the biggest voter problems tend to be in cities, where Clinton does better, not worse. Democrats in general want to try and make voter suppression a campaign issue, so there's not much to lose for Clinton there. If the primary was winner-take-all or in a state where she won 65%+, it might be a different story. Hentropy (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like something anyone should do if they care about a fair election. It's not just fair when you win and unfair when you lose like Trump likes to tout. What happens is up in the air since this is one of the most egregious violations I've heard of in the US. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the fairest thing would be a revote. Pizzameister (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

two with the same number

there are two entries with the same number (184). I want to vote one up and one down but I can't. What do I do? Flannan Isle (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit them so that they have different numbers. Pizzameister (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The average of 'upvote' and 'downvote' is 'do nothing'. But what Pizza said is probably better. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 42016 AQD (UTC)