Who Do You Think Will Win The Democrat And Republican Nominations?

[CarolAnn 926]

Sanders and Trump are gathering the opposite ends of the same demographic - disaffected, disenfranchised, dissatisfied.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

Sanders and Trump are gathering the opposite ends of the same demographic - disaffected, disenfranchised, dissatisfied.

 

Since Trump won the nomination and Sanders won't how do you see Sanders supporters splitting Carol? The disaffected to Trump and the liberals to Hillary? Or do you think many of them will just stay home?

[CarolAnn 926]

 

Sanders and Trump are gathering the opposite ends of the same demographic - disaffected, disenfranchised, dissatisfied.

 

Since Trump won the nomination and Sanders won't how do you see Sanders supporters splitting Carol? The disaffected to Trump and the liberals to Hillary? Or do you think many of them will just stay home?

18 - 29 year olds will stay home and sulk loudly, proclaiming that the world is unfair and America sucks and if they can't vote for Bernie they won't vote for anyone, boo hoo, give me another craft brew and stand back while my ecig explodes in my pocket.

 

I hate to make this elitist, but most of the Independents and Democrats who are chronologically up my direction, educated and professional will hold their noses and vote Clinton, methinks. Blue collar Democrats may defect to Trump, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.

 

Of course, most predictions in this election have faceplanted. I have no illusions for my second career as a political pundit.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

 

 

Sanders and Trump are gathering the opposite ends of the same demographic - disaffected, disenfranchised, dissatisfied.

Since Trump won the nomination and Sanders won't how do you see Sanders supporters splitting Carol? The disaffected to Trump and the liberals to Hillary? Or do you think many of them will just stay home?

18 - 29 year olds will stay home and sulk loudly, proclaiming that the world is unfair and America sucks and if they can't vote for Bernie they won't vote for anyone, boo hoo, give me another craft brew and stand back while my ecig explodes in my pocket.

 

I hate to make this elitist, but most of the Independents and Democrats who are chronologically up my direction, educated and professional will hold their noses and vote Clinton, methinks. Blue collar Democrats may defect to Trump, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.

 

Of course, most predictions in this election have faceplanted. I have no illusions for my second career as a political pundit.

 

 

Oh I don't know Carol, I'm not aware that an acute knowledge of politics is a requirement to be a political pundit, especially in the States. I think it all largely comes down to how Bernie handles himself leading into and after the convention. All this talk about a 'messy' convention and the astonishing amount of vitriol being thrown in Hillary's direction by her own party make it seem unlikely that the Dems will come out of Cleveland united. I thought it was bad in 2008 between Obama and Clinton but Hillary rode it back when the writing was on the wall, interrupted the roll call with that beautifully staged bit of party unity to nominate Obama 'by acclamation' and then both she and Bill gave full throated speeches of support for Obama during the convention.

 

Bernie's already vowing to fight until every last superdelegate has cast their vote, is still tarring Clinton and Trump as two sides of the same privileged New York elitist coin and stating that - however slim his path may be - he'll come out the convention as the nominee. Stoking up angry people to believe that something that isn't going to happen is achievable is only a recipe for more anger. How do you say 'oh well, we gave it a shot, now everyone support Hillary' when a month ago she was only the front runner because of the elite in the media? It reminds me, again, of 8 years ago. That time the wide-eyed promise of 'hope' and 'change' won out but all that's been discovered in eight years is it wasn't as easy to achieve as Obama made it sound (as most people could unsurprisingly see even all the way back then). Now look at the anger from liberals who think Obama failed them. Maybe he didn't do enough in the first two years with Democratic majorities in both houses but since then he's had a Speaker who wouldn't discuss things with him, a Senator hated by his own side who was prepared to bring down the federal government rather than compromise, wars in the Middle East that he promised to end that have just got bigger, a detention camp in Cuba that was definitely meant to be closed by now, immigration reform that hasn't happened and gun control laws that have only been passed through executive orders. Maybe he didn't deliver on his promises but that's only because his promises were unrealistic in the first place. But Obama's are positively conservative to Bernie's pie in the sky ideas. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's wrong on most of them I just can't see that a single one of them has the slightest chance of making it through the 2017 Congress.

 

Elizabeth Warren is Hillary's biggest weapon. If she comes out and gives her big backing at the convention (when surely she'll get a major role given her ferocity at going after Trump) it may be enough to tempt many Bernie supporters to Hillary's cause. That said, I don't think she'll be Hillary's VP pick.

[CarolAnn 926]

You know what the pitiful thing here is? Regardless of who is elected President, I will still have a mother in law in California who I can't move to Texas because Texas doesn't have sufficient nursing home coverage, a mother in Texas who I can't move to California because the medication she's on is only handled through major medical facilities, a house in California that I can't unload because my late father in law was an idiot who incurred a tax lien and a house in Texas that is still mortgaged, I have a job with a multinational corporation that is laying off huge swathes of employees on a quarterly basis, and my health insurance is tied to my job. After the summer my husband and I will be living in separate states long-term so we can take care of our respective mothers. I still have student loans that I can't refinance because Congress says I can't even though the lending rate is far below the rate on the loans, My credit card interest rate is obscene. I will still be supporting my grandson because all those jobs in Texas that everyone brags about are minimum wage or slightly above and there is no training for people like my grandson's mother.

 

My income is stretched to the limit. Census demographics tell me I'm in the top 25% of earners in the country, but when you are supporting nursing homes, paying property taxes in two states, travelling back and forth from Texas to California on a regular basis, paying for a 5 year old, and meeting the regular life-related expenses, things get tight.

 

Neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are going to produce any relief for me and the 1000s of people in my generation who are caught between aging parents who didn't prepare for final expenses and children/grandchildren who need current expenses. I listen to all this crap and even thought it's the same crap dating back to 1984 when I cast my first vote, this time it's more obvious than ever that if I wait for any politician to care about the plights of citizens I will die alone in a ditch.

 

I have it far better than the majority of people in the United States. Go on. Laugh.

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

Don't forget American cousins, you have an alternative http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/us/politics/libertarians-see-chance-amid-discontent-over-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html?ref=politics

[Banshees Scream 110]

Hillarion is going to defeat Trumpling in the future.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

Don't forget American cousins, you have an alternative http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/us/politics/libertarians-see-chance-amid-discontent-over-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html?ref=politics

 

It depends on what you mean by an 'alternative'. If they want to have a say in the next President of the United States then it will be wasted voting Libertarian. If they want to be able to vote for something credible other than the Democrats and Republicans then maybe they do have an alternative. But I would be astonished if most of what that article suggests comes to pass. Johnson may (and it's a big 'may') get to the 15% needed in the polls to get on the debate stage, but if he doesn't then it will be fairly insignificant. If it does, then he may do alright, but I can still see many switching back if the election is really close. This one really matters in terms of the direction of the country and whether you want to protect Obama's legacy or destroy it, move the Supreme Court to the left or to the right or take a hard line on immigration and terrorism or a softer approach and many floating voters will be forced to swallow their qualms and vote for whomever will secure the future they want (and that's not going to be Gary Johnson).

 

I'm also unconvinced he can take a state's electoral vote for similar reasons. Yeah maybe, in places like Colorado where there's a strong libertarian strand, but even then it's an uphill battle. Ross Perot got nearly 19% of the vote and nearly 20 million votes and yet didn't register a single electoral vote. To win a state you need a plurality of the popular vote, but in a three-way state-wide contest you still need at least 34% of the vote to win the electoral college votes. His best hope would be a strong showing against either Clinton or Trump in a particular state and supporters of the weak party switching to Johnson to stop the other person winning (e.g. Trump 40%, Johnson 36%, Clinton 24% - Clinton voters switch to Johnson to stop Trump). His other big problem is this strategy of giving Bernie's millennials a home away from Hillary but the most likely thing is they just won't vote. Statistically far fewer of them are going to vote than the baby boomers and even if they show interest in a candidate, getting them out to vote is difficult.

 

The American political system isn't designed for a multi-party situation, it only really works when it's 1 v 1, 50-50, hence why the two main parties are such big tents. I'm not saying this is a good thing, it's just the way it works. So Johnson faces a huge uphill task. The one thing I will say for him is he seems a decent guy and the rest of the world has thrown it's politics into chaos with fragmented elections (the UK in 2010, Greece pretty much annually, Italy in 2013, Spain in 2015, Ireland in 2016...) so if he's ever going to make a name for himself, this is his chance. It's also worth noting that Bill Clinton won in 1992 when Ross Perot fragmented the vote, maybe Hillary will win when Johnson does the same.

[Dr. Zorders 1,271]

Hillarion is going to defeat Trumpling in the future.

In 2020?

[CarolAnn 926]

Don't forget American cousins, you have an alternative http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/us/politics/libertarians-see-chance-amid-discontent-over-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html?ref=politics

 

And there was even a strip tease. Can't ask for much more than that.

[Tempus Fugit 214]

Donald Trump will be the next US President, this will please me greatly.

[RadGuy 1,614]

Okay, people. Just a little analysis on how the Democratic race is going.

 

HILLARY CLINTON FUCKING WON, GET OVER IT!

 

I could leave it at that, but I won't.

 

Over the weekend, the two Carribean territories voted.

 

Saturday was the U.S. Virgin Islands caucus. Due to the majority black population, Clinton won 87% in her biggest win ever (second was Mississippi at 83%). She is expected to get 7 of the 7 delegates available.

 

Sunday was the Puerto Rico primary. This was controversial, as Puerto Rico cut down its polling places by a lot. Lines was long and shit. The full results still aren't in, but Clinton was declared the winner with around 60%, and will get around 40 of the 60 available delegates.

 

Where is she now? Only 26 delegates away from the nomination, with like 700 left in tomorrow's contest and the DC primary next week.

 

BUT NO SHE ISN'T THAT INCLUDES SUPERDELEGATES THEY DON'T COUNT IT'S A CONTESTED CONVENTION!!!!!!!!! BERNIE SANDERS WILL WIN WHEN THOSE DUMBASS SUPERDELEGATES REALIZE HE IS THE BEST THING SINCE JESUS!

 

Superdelegates are supposed to count, though.

Yeah, they're unpledged and can change their vote, but they won't. Despite their purpose being to block a terrible candidate, they have never gone against the will of the people. The will of the people is Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

 

In fact, many superdelegates still haven't said who they're voting for. Which means if these people had announced it by now, Clinton would be the presumptive nominee already.

 

Tomorrow is June 7th which means there are 6 contests being held.

 

CALIFORNIA: With almost 500 delegates, this is the prize of the night. It's a dead heat according to polls - all show Clinton winning but only by around 2 points. She definitely doesn't need win to get the nomination, but a loss would be embarrassing to her. So both she and Sanders are campaigning hard. It's not closed, which means independents can vote. Also, not many African-Americans. So it looks like Clinton has slim chances. Especially since Hispanic-Americans aren't a firewall for her - she won them in Arizona, Florida, New York, and Texas. But she lost them in Illinois and Nevada.

 

NEW JERSEY: Second largest contest with around 130 delegates. This is supposed to be a Clinton stronghold, as every single state and county bordering New Jersey was a Clinton win. So it's likely she'll even take all the counties. Polls have her up at 60% or more. Because the polls close in this state first (at 8:00PM Eastern), it is likely she will be announced the presumptive nominee before the first California vote is counted.

 

NEW MEXICO: A rather small contest. I think it's only like 40-50 delegates. The latest poll has Clinton with a 25-point lead. It's a closed primary which will help her too.

 

MONTANA: An open primary, looks very Sanders-friendly. Only 20 delegates or so.

 

SOUTH DAKOTA: A recent poll has Clinton up by 3 points. It's a semi-closed primary. It was the only state in the region Clinton won in 2008. So it looks like a Clinton win, right? Probably not, it's a lily white state filled with anti-government cowboy libertarians. Only 20 delegates or so.

 

NORTH DAKOTA: An open caucus, looks extremely Sanders-friendly. Only 20 delegates or so.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

Excellent analysis. Is California really that close? (CarolAnn care to volunteer anything you've heard?)

 

All I would add is that I'll accept Bernie (and his supporters') argument that superdelegates are unconstitutional, or undemocratic, or whatever his beef is with them this week. Furthermore, I'll remove every last superdelegate from the contest. Can't say fairer than that. In that event, that brings the number of delegates needed to a little over 2000 (around 2026 if you want to be exact). Hillary is currently on 1811 pledged delegates. Which means a further 200 from tomorrow's contests would give her a majority of the pledged delegates. With California having 475 pledged delegates, even if we roughly split them 50-50, then that still gives Hillary the 237 she needs to clinch the nomination. Oh, and since we can't do this and the superdelegates have to count, we'll do the only thing Bernie actually expects, which is that superdelegates of states he's won vote for him on the first ballot. Perfectly fair request to make (though not one that Hillary asked for, nor expected in 2008). So let's do that.

 

States Hillary has won: Iowa (8 superdelegates), Nevada (8), South Carolina (6), American Samoa (5), Arkansas (5), Georgia (15), Massachusetts (24), Tennessee (8), Texas (29), Virginia (14), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (5), Northern Marianas (5), Florida (32), Illinois (26), Missouri (13), North Carolina (14), Ohio (17), Arizona (10), New York (44), Connecticut (16), Delaware (10), Maryland (24), Pennsylvania (21), Guam (5), Kentucky (5), Virgin Islands (5) and Puerto Rico (7) = 389 superdelegates

 

States Bernie has won: New Hampshire (8 superdelegates), Colorado (12), Minnesota (16), Oklahoma (4), Vermont (10), Kansas (4), Nebraska (5), Maine (5), Dems Abroad (4), Michigan (17), Idaho (4), Utah (4), Alaska (4), Hawaii (10), Washington (17), Wisconsin (10), Wyoming (4), Rhode Island (9), Indiana (9), West Virginia (8) and Oregon (13) = 177 superdelegates.

 

So Hillary has a net lead of 222 superdelegates even if they vote according to state lines. In that scenario, Hillary starts tomorrow night on 2200 (rather than 2359) and needs a further 183 delegates tomorrow night, again eminently reachable even with less than half of California's stockpile.

 

Furthermore, Bernie won binding caucuses in both Nebraska and Washington, while Hillary won non-binding primaries in both those states. Add the numbers together and you get something interesting:

 

Nebraska caucus for Hillary (14340) + primary for Hillary (42665) = 57005 votes.

Nebraska caucus for Bernie (19120) + primary for Bernie (37705) = 56825 votes.

 

Washington caucus for Hillary (7140) + primary for Hillary (416463) = 423603 votes.

Washington caucus for Bernie (19159) + primary for Bernie (378364) = 397523 votes.

 

In both states, over both contests Hillary polled better but Bernie won the delegates.

 

So: Hillary has more votes than Bernie (13.2 million-10.2 million), Hillary has won more contests than Bernie (29-21), Hillary has won 8/10 of the biggest states (Bernie won Michigan, California votes tomorrow), Hillary has more pledged delegates than Bernie (1811-1526), Hillary has more superdelegates than Bernie (548-46) and even if we distribute the superdelegates 'fairly' (i.e. how Senator Sanders would like them distributed) she would still get more, and even if there were no superdelegates, she'd be on the cusp of the nomination anyway. The game isn't rigged, you simply played it and lost!

 

Finally:

 

Saturday was the U.S. Virgin Islands caucus. Due to the majority black population, Clinton won 87% in her biggest win ever (second was Mississippi at 83%). She is expected to get 7 of the 7 delegates available.

 

What?! You're telling me 17% of US Virgin Islands Democratic voters don't get a voice at the convention?! What kind of democracy is this?!

 

Tomorrow night's speech by Bernie will be enormous.

[RadGuy 1,614]

Okay, so here's what went down last night.

 

Clinton won 4/6 contests and 372/694 pledged delegates.

 

CALIFORNIA

Clinton 56%

Sanders 43%

 

NEW JERSEY

Clinton 63%

Sanders 37%

 

NEW MEXICO

Clinton 52%

Sanders 48%

 

MONTANA

Sanders 51%

Clinton 45%

 

SOUTH DAKOTA

Clinton 51%

Sanders 49%

 

NORTH DAKOTA

Sanders 64%

Clinton 26%

 

Let's start with New Jersey, as the results started pouring in first. The polls were fairly spot on, as Clinton got 63%.

This is her biggest win in a non-Southern state. It's fairly close though, as in Maryland, which voted in April, she only got 0.3% less.

Her biggest county win was Essex County, with 73%. This county is near New York City, and is home to Newark - the largest city in the state, with a large African-American population.

Sanders only won two counties - Warren and Sussex - which are located in the rural northwest of the state.

 

South Dakota came in soon after that, but it took a while for the winner to be declared, as it was close. Clinton ultimately prevailed with 51%.

This state was interesting, as it was quite a surprise that Clinton won. It's extremely white and rural, a lot of it's neighboring states went for Sanders in a landslide.

However, it wasn't that big of a surprise, as it was the only state in the area Clinton won in 2008, and the only poll, from May, predicted a slight Clinton win - spot on.

What's interesting is the divide of the vote. Clinton won almost every county in the eastern half of the state. Sanders won every county in the western half.

Luckily for Clinton, the eastern half is more densely populated.

 

North Dakota, the only caucus of the night, came through very quickly. Due to low turnout, as is the case in caucuses, Sanders won in a landslide at 64%.

Just like some other caucus states, the county results are unknown. Instead the district results come in.

The district results were random - Clinton won one just west of Bismarck, and two in the northeast of the state. It wasn't as clear of a divide as its southern twin had.

 

Next to pour in was New Mexico.

This was probably the only state that Clinton did worse than expected in. It was a closed primary, with a large Hispanic population after all.

She got 52%. She, rather surprisingly, lost Bernalillo county, where Albuquerque is.

But she won Santa Fe, Dona Ana, and Sandoval counties - home to the cities of Santa Fe, Las Cruces, and Rio Rancho, respectively.

Sanders did best in the middle of the state, where there's a stripe of counties he won stretching from Arizona to Texas. He was actually expected to win most of his counties up north, near Colorado.

 

Montana came up next.

This was supposed to be a Sanders landslide, but it wasn't.

Early results had Clinton in the lead, but eventually Sanders pulled through.

Full results have Sanders at 51%, and Clinton at 45%.

Sanders won Missoula, Helena, and most counties.

Clinton won Billings, the north-central areas, and the northwestern areas.

 

California - the grand prize - was last to close its polls.

Clinton had a comfortable lead way into the double digits all along. It eventually fell a little, but ended up at 56%.

Nobody was sure who'd win California. Clinton was only slightly favored in polls and predictions.

But she did WAY better than expected. She won many inland counties she wasn't supposed to.

She also won San Francisco by double digits - everybody expected those dirty hippies to go for Sanders.

In the end, Sanders only won the far north counties. Also Inyo, Mariposa and Mono counties in the Sierra Nevada, plus Santa Cruz on the central coast.

 

So what now?

 

Well, Clinton is basically the nominee, and you can expect endorsements from people like President Obama and Elizabeth Warren soon.

 

Sanders did say in his victory speech that he will fight on until the convention - as he always does - but I'm not so sure if that's true.

His tone seemed pessimistic, and he congratulated Clinton rather than criticizing her.

Hopefully he doesn't become the donkey version of John Kasich.

 

There's still the Washington, D.C. primary on June 14th.

But that's an obvious Clinton win, and a small contest, so nobody gives a fuck about it.

[Dr. Zorders 1,271]

^BOORING

BOOOOORING

Hillary's victory is truly a millstone for women. I mean MILESTONE... milestone.

[drol 11,951]

^BOORING

BOOOOORING

Hillary's victory is truly a millstone for women. I mean MILESTONE... milestone.

Freedom...blablabla...emancipation...blablablabala...equal rights...blabablabla...tolerance...blablabla....HOPE.

 

I've already heard all these things. It was 2008, and the best was yet to come.

[RadGuy 1,614]

Yesterday was the DC Primary.

 

Hillary won with 79%.

 

The primaries are officially over!

 

Time to close this thread and make a new poll/thread for the general election.

[YoungWillz 21,050]

Surely the nominations are not secure until the Conventions? Jus' sayin' like.

[Dr. Zorders 1,271]

Surely the nominations are not secure until the Conventions? Jus' sayin' like.

Anything can happen between now and the conventions.

As a "liberal", naturally RadGuy is looking for any excuse to shut down debate and cast the "people" he supports as "inevitable" etc. Quite freaky really.

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

Yeah, Trump isn't nailed on yet.

[Dr. Zorders 1,271]

Yeah, Trump isn't nailed on yet.

No, give Obama time... to find a non-white carpenter to make a cross for him.

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

 

Yeah, Trump isn't nailed on yet.

No, give Obama time... to find a non-white carpenter to make a cross for him.

 

Set its up and he's tapped it in - should move this to the Euros thread.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

OK, let me re-phrase my esteemed colleague Rad Guy's basic point:

 

Trump has 1545 delegates. 1237 are needed for the nomination, so unless something fundamentally changes between now and the convention then Trump will be the nominee. He has been declared the Republican nominee by Reine Priebus (the Republican National Committee Chairman), Paul Ryan (the Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives) and Mitch McConnell (the Republican Majority Leader of the US Senate). He has even been acknowledged to be the nominee by 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who can't stand the man, but sees no path to stop him getting the nomination.

 

Hillary has 2219 pledged delegates (the ones from states' primaries) and 581 superdelegates (party officials) giving a total of 2800 delegates. 2383 are needed for the Democratic nomination, so she is also clear with room to spare. She has been declared the nominee by President Obama, Vice President Biden, Elizabeth Warren and various other significant party figures. Even Bernie Sanders has said he looks forward to talking to Clinton about how they can defeat Donald Trump in November. The only way Hillary will not be the nominee is if she was to be indicted over her emails and all the evidence says that this will not happen. She may have been reckless, elitist or even 'crooked' as the Donald would say, but there is no 'smoking gun' that will lead to her indictment. Without that, she will be the nominee come July.

 

Furthermore, above all else, the candidates consider each other to be their respective parties' nominees, they are looking for Vice Presidential nominees on the basis that they are their parties' nominees and the media are holding their discussions on the basis that they are their parties nominees.

 

It doesn't really bother me whether we close this and start a new thread or continue on this until the convention, or even until November, just let me know where I can discuss Trump's U-Turn on guns, Mitt Romney's near-endorsement of Gary Johnson and the inevitable torrent of back and forth there will be between now and the conventions.

[YoungWillz 21,050]

Assassination. Always a possibility in gun-totin' 'Murica.

[charon 4,943]