Bernie is winning the nomination race and here's whyFollow

Sure. And his only chance to do that is to be more aggressive than he has been. Frankly (and again bear in mind that I didn't watch the debate start to finish), I think his mistake was not going hard enough (yeah, giggity!). He "kinda" took off the kid gloves, but not really. Pushing the petal halfway to the metal isn't necessarily a good idea. Just made him look uncomfortable, while not actually scoring much in the way of damage on Clinton. Again though, that's from clips I've seen. If I have a chance, I'll see if I can catch the whole thing this weekend and maybe I'll see something different though.



Again, just from clips, but there was one section where it was the moderator pushing Clinton about some transcripts or other (donation stuff I think?) but not really Sanders. I got the sense that the moderators wanted to make that a big point and pin her down on it more than Sanders himself did. Maybe for ratings or something, I don't know. Again, it's hard to get the sense of the debate just from clips of sections of it.



Well, some have been doing that. My take has pretty consistently been that the only people likely to be pissed off enough at a Trump nomination loss to say home for the general (or support a third party bid by Trump) are these "new voters", who likely would not normally have been voting GOP in the general anyway. It's certain that some percentage of Trumps primary voters are folks who would normally vote Republican in the general, but that portion of his supporters are less likely to be of the "OMG! The GOP is corrupt and I'm supporting Trump cause they all suck!" variety, and more of the "Well Martha, I think this Trump guy seems like the best shot for our party to win" variety. And those folks will vote for the GOP candidate in November in all likelihood.



Not sure where you're getting that vibe, but I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. I'm seeing a heck of a lot of media speculation about this, but that doesn't really tell us much about what voters will do in the summer and fall. There's still a heck of a lot of people pissed off about 8 years of Obama politics, and see a Clinton presidency as more of the same. These voters will vote GOP pretty much no matter who is put on the ticket. I'm just not sure how much "the GOP didn't do enough to stop them" resonates into a reason to not vote at all. I mean, maybe some people, but most are going to redouble their efforts.

You (and those you're relying on for punditry) are probably grossly underestimating the degree with which many on the right just plain loathe Clinton. I honestly think that a Trump nomination hurts the GOP chances more than any other possible outcome. Far more folks on the right are concerned that Trump might not be any better than Clinton (and possibly far worse), than are going to be pissed off that Trump's nomination was "stolen" from him. They dislike Trump about as much as they dislike Clinton, but at least see Clinton as the devil you know.

At least, that's how I see it, and that's the "vibe" I'm getting. My vibe is clearly very different from yours though. But at least among the people I talk politics with, most of them (especially conservatives) are as concerned about what Trump might do in office as they are about Clinton. The Democrats I know are even *more* concerned about what Trump might do. So I see a Trump nomination as a possible combination of a lot of terrified liberals rushing to the polls to make sure Trump doesn't win (even if they have to hold their noses at Clinton), combined with a lot of concerned (possibly even terrified as well) conservatives, thinking the same darn thing. I'm not sure that can be outweighed by the new voters Trump may bring in. Maybe it can. Maybe it can't. But in either case, I don't see Trump losing the nomination as automatically sinking the GOP's chance (or a Trump nomination win, for that matter). I suspect that the results of this Novembers election will be more of a referendum on how the public views Clinton as a potential president, than how they feel about any particular GOP opponent. I think the GOP numbers will tend to wash out either way.

Not getting him and Cruz out early in the process pretty much did that.

Trump is winning the delegate messaging fight
Last number I saw (which I'm sure is in one of these threads) was ~52% saying the leader should win the nomination.

Except, unless I'm totally misreading the sources I've been looking at, it wasn't that way previously. My understanding is that the RNC instituted a new rule this election cycle that basically required that if you have a straw poll, you must use the results of said poll to determine delegates to the convention. CO had previously held straw polls, but they were not binding. So the elimination of the straw poll wasn't so much about changing out CO selects delegates, but preventing that process from being changed by new rules at the national level.



It's a matter of picking your poison though. You could equally argue that in a poll scenario, the "machine politics" guy could flood the caucus with people who just show up to vote in the straw poll, while ignoring the local and state election stuff that are going on as well. I guess it depends on what you think makes something "machine" or "establishment" politics. Is it really wrong for the state delegation to the national convention for a party to be most influenced by supporters for a candidate who actually spends time and effort working with the state party members on issues in their state, and elections in their state, and appointments in their state? Remember, the system somewhat mirrors how we do things in all areas of our political system. Just as we don't live in America Land, but rather have states which are represented at the national level via representatives and senators, each state party sends their own delegation to the national convention. It's not unreasonable for them to select that delegation based on their own choices within their own party, rather than what a number of people in the state, who maybe never participate in the local or state party at all, but who parachute in because they've been influenced by national level polls and politics instead.



Most of the unhappiness seems to be among people who are either not residents of the state at all, or are residents who aren't involved in their political parties except when there's a national election going on. One can argue that's "working as intended".

Heck. If I had my druthers, I'd argue for changes in the other direction. Anyone can register to vote and vote right away, but you can only participate in the party primary if you've been registered with the party for X years, and have actively voted as a member of that party in the last X elections, including purely state or local level votes. It really should be member of the party who pick their delegations, not people who only show up once someone else has already set up the buffet for them. I get why we do things differently, but I also see that Trump is basically complaining that there are still a handful of states that don't allow outsiders to participate in their delegate selection process.

Which seems silly. He should be happy that so many states have open primaries and/or few restrictions in term of registering to vote in said primaries. Since that's more or less what's made his campaign possible. If he can't win the nomination despite the system being "rigged" in his favor, that's on him.

The #BernieBreadLines have already begun!

*Runs Away Screaming*

Sure. And if you could "equally argue" it, that would imply that those upset have a valid complaint even if it's one that you don't share or come down on the other side of.


While I don't agree with that, what you're arguing for is essentially a "very" closed primary. I'm saying that the caucus system is shit. The whole "Let's have a narrow window where you have to hang around through a process rather than just ticking a box sometime between 6am and 7pm and going on your way" thing that depresses turnout even among party loyalists. But having the state party pay for meeting in a community center to throw index cards into a hat is a lot cheaper than having the state government pay for an actual election so we keep getting stuck with them.

Partial Nudity, Propaganda, and Pilsner: the Path to Political Power.

Coming to a best seller list near you!

Edited, Apr 19th 2016 11:26am by someproteinguy

No! Voting should only be for people who have nothing at all better to do-- aka old people.

Hence why it's picking your poison rather than "system A is fair and system B is unfair". Both methods have pros and cons, but I don't see any of the other candidates complaining that the primary system in unfair/rigged/whatever because it allows someone like Trump to gain a relative delegate count significantly greater than his relative popular vote count. There's a reason why Trump has done well in primary states (and most well in open primary states), and very poorly in caucus states. The point is that all the candidates know the rules going in, and know what differences there are between different states, and should therefore plan for those differences in their campaign.

Trumps "plan" seems to be to take advantage of the rules that benefit him, and then complain about the ones that don't. And if he can convince enough people that those other rules are unfair, that's good on him. But that's not going to stop me pointing out that his claims of unfairness are totally absurd.



Yup. I don't think it's unreasonable that one actually show some history voting for a given party before they get to have a say in who that party nominates. Nothing requires you to vote any given way in an actual election, of course, but I think that a person should pick a party that best represents their positions first, and then work within that party in conjunction with other people with similar positions to work out a platform and nominate candidates who best represent that platform. The danger in allowing too open a system (which is where we've been headed for some time), is exactly what is happening now. Someone comes along with a populist message, but little or no alignment with the core principles of a party, and is able to bring in a whole bunch of people who also have little or no association with the core principles of that party to vote for him in the primaries, effectively overriding the party platform itself in one motion.

But then, I'm generally a big fan of the idea of having blocks in place to prevent mass mob actions based on the whim of the moment. Better to have slow gradual changes than fast ones that you'll likely regret later.



I don't see how it's "getting stuck" with them in any case. I think we sometimes forget that the national convention is a convention of the state parties. They send their delegations to the convention, meet with other state delegations, hash out the rules for the convention itself, come up with a platform for the national party (make changes to existing platform generally), and ultimately nominate someone to run for president. The power is supposed to be in those state parties, not some monolithic national machine. Now, obviously, since the development of national media (TV really), having a more national message has become somewhat of a requirement for a party. Folks in Iowa can see how things are done in Nebraska, for example, and may have an opinion on it. But it does not change the fact that the system is ultimately about a set of state delegations, not one big national delegation. There's nothing at all "broken" with systems like the one in CO. We've just gotten used to the more election day type primary process over time.

This is something Trump doesn't seem to understand at all. And it's why he sucks at caucuses. Those, by design, require pretty significant effort on those who participate. And no, it's not the "party machine" that usually dominates these things. It's the activists in the party who do. You know who else did well in caucuses? Rand Paul (and his father before him). It's about getting a very strong amount of momentum at the local grassroots level. Something Trump doesn't know how to do, presumably because he might have to dirty his hands talking with and *gasp* maybe shaking hands with, the "little people". He honestly seems to be running his campaign like he's running in a general election. But he's not. He's trying to win the nomination of a political party. So it's not about popular vote among the whole of the people. It's about alignment with what the party thinks best represents their platform, and who they think has the best chance of winning.

How that is determined can vary by state, but I'd argue strongly that open primaries for delegates who are then required to vote for the candidate based on popular vote tallies, is the least likely to result in those delegates actually representing the state party at the convention, and most likely to represent broader national issues which may be influential at the moment and can bring lots of voters to the polls on primary day. A closed primary at least limits that somewhat. A caucus is even better. Again, if you think it's important for the state delegation to actually represent the issues and agenda of the state party, rather than just be a cookie cutter national issues delegation.

The system has been adjusted over time, primarily out of a belief that a contested convention looks bad in the media (and especially on TV). But the reality is that historically, a contested convention is precisely what you *should* have every time. There shouldn't be pledged delegates. You should have to go to each state, and go to the local party activists, and tell them what you'd do for them and their state if you win, and then get those people to agree to run as delegates on your behalf, and then get people to vote for them (whether in a caucus or primary) to be in the delegation. If you've done this properly, you don't need them to be forced by rules to vote for you. They'll do it because they actually believe you're the best candidate for the job. And people will select them to be in the delegation because they believe you're the best candidate for the job (or at least, that the selection criteria of that delegate will pick someone they believe is best for the job).

Burdensome? Heck ya! But voting is not so much a right as a responsibility. Far too many people just think showing up on election day and dropping a ballot in the box means they've done their civic duty. But the problem with that is that it makes the results of the election too affected by media. He who gets the best press will tend to win. Short attention span voters aren't likely to learn any more about the candidates than what they maybe glean from a few minutes a night of news coverage. Maybe. Obviously, we have to allow that sort of thing for general elections, because that's the only way to manage them effectively. But for the nomination process itself? I see nothing wrong with requiring far more effort on the part of those who participate. If for no other reason than to weed out the drive by voters from the process. If you have to spend time and effort just casting a vote, then you're more likely to spend time and effort learning about the candidates.

Well, in theory anyway. No system is perfect.

15% counted, Trump at 67%. Most notable that Cruz might not even break the necessary 20% to get any delegates since he's been sitting on like 12% for a while now. Kasich might but not looking particularly good for him either, who is at about 19%.

On the other side, Clinton/Bernie is 61%/38%.

Aaaand SHIELD is down. Again. Well, they've got material, though not necessarily evidence of it.

I'm not sure how to feel about Cruz getting thoroughly shut down. I mean, Trump is horrible, but Cruz thought he could talk about my city.

Edit: 54% and she's still about twenty points up and Trump is up like thirty-five, which is about where they've been all night. Kind of doubt it'll be a huge change so I'm going to stop paying attention. I'll look up all the conspiracy slash weakness talk in the morning when I'm (having other people) clean up the joint.

Edited, Apr 19th 2016 10:12pm by lolgaxe

A whole lot of NYC votes to come in yet including all of Nassau County. Neighboring counties all have Clinton up 12-20 points so I'm going to guess she wins in the neighborhood of +20 give or take a couple points.