2016 United States Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The "mainstream media" is really out to get Bernie Sanders now. Check out this vicious attack, which is probably the most condemning article about him that I have seen.

The Problem isn't Bernie Sanders' supporters. It's Bernie Sanders himself

Oh wait. That's not the "mainstream media". That's is written by Markos "kos" Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of the Daily Kos, one of the most progressive sites on the 'net. And while I have never been a big fan of the Daily Kos, I could have written it word for word.

ETA: Another one from him that I could have written word for word: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/23 ... and-square

[Primula Baggins]

Wow. That had come up on my Twitter feed, and I hadn't read it because it was from Daily Kos. Although I, too, agree with many of the political views expressed there, much of the site's content is written by amateurs, and it shows. I haven't gone there regularly in years.

But Moulitsas himself is an exception, and I agree that this sums up the situation from my perspective as well.

[Cerin]

It is no news that there are plenty of Clinton supporters on dailykos, and that they're every bit as zealous about their point of view as Sanders supporters are about theirs.

[tinwë]

I think the fact that it is the founder of the site, and not just any old "Clinton supporter on dailykos" is significant. I don't keep up with dailykos myself, for much the same reason as Prim - I find much of their content to be nothing more then bombastic hyperbole - but my experience is, as a website, they lean pretty hard left, and for the founder of the site show such criticism for the hard left candidate is newsworthy.

[Primula Baggins]

I agree that it is, tinwë. I honestly don't know who the prevailing favorite candidate is on that site, as I haven't spent any time there this election season, but I would certainly have guessed there'd be a strong majority of Sanders supporters. (That isn't why I stayed away, as I started out this election planning to support Sanders myself.)

[Cerin]

I receive an email from daily kos, but I don't often go further than scanning the headlines, as I also find them to be heavy on the bombast and hyperbole. My impression has been that there is a pretty even split between Clinton and Sanders in their editorials, and that's what I was referring to when I said 'there are plenty of Clinton supporters' on dailykos. But I suppose all of the anti-Sanders articles could have been written by the same guy; I haven't looked closely. If he's the founder, I assume he can feature his own opinions as often as he likes. So I don't really know that there are plenty of Clinton supporters on daily kos; I should say rather, that there are plenty of pro-Clinton, anti-Sanders articles on daily kos, of the kind referred to in this instance. That might reflect the general membership, and it might not. My point was, this is nothing new in tone or content to anyone who has been following their editorials throughout the primary campaign.

[Frelga]

I'm trying to figure out how closely what Bernie proposes to do parallels what Lenin did to the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. It's an interesting exercise.

[Túrin Turambar]

By some counts Trump passed 1,237 today, including unbound delegates. He also seems to be gaining in the general election polls, although this may simply be because he has wrapped up the nomination and Clinton hasn’t.

Political leaders in America’s allies are needing to prepare for the possibility of a Trump presidency. In Australia’s election campaign, Labor Leader and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten described Trump as “barking mad”. This may be ill-advised, as if Labor wins the July election here and Trump wins in November then Shorten will need to co-operate with Trump. Shorten, for his part, has pointed out that a number of prominent Australian conservatives have criticised Trump. Most notably John Howard, who described him as “unstable”.

For my part, I think that our leaders getting involved in the domestic politics of our Allies should be avoided. I’m reminded of John Howard’s criticism of Barack Obama in 2007, probably in defence of his friend George W. Bush. I thought that was a serious mistake, and consistent with that I think that criticism of Trump from the potential Prime Minister is likewise unwise.

[Primula Baggins]

It's chilling to realize that this might actually be an issue. Please no.

[Cerin]

This is the second article I've read referencing high-level whisperings about replacing Clinton with Biden at the Democratic convention, because of Clinton's weakness as a candidate (the high unfavorable ratings, bad poll showings against Trump, looming FBI investigation over the emails, and identification with the loathed political establishment). That would leave both Sanders and Clinton supporters furious, so I can't imagine that it will really happen.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/01/w ... d-the-fbi/

I wonder how far the democratic establishment will go to ensure that Clinton wins California. California is an open primary, meaning that independent (no party preference) voters can ask for a democratic ballot. If poll workers instead are instructed to give NPP voters provisional ballots, and if those voters don't know enough to ask for a democratic party ballot instead, those provisional ballots won't be counted.

In addition, there's the issue of stripping party affiliation or names from the voter rolls, which has happened in several primaries. Over 125,000 names were purged from the Brooklyn voting rolls. Then regardless of what happens in California, I've read that the major networks are set to declare the democratic race over on Tuesday, factoring the super delegates into Clinton's total even though super delegates cannot vote until the convention.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Clinton has now secured the nomination with the vote in Puerto Rico over the weekend. Shame, I was hoping California might do that for Bernie.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, that depends on who you ask. Actually it wasn't the Puerto Rico vote that put her over the top, at least according to the AP and other media sources, but some additional super delegates in addition to the large victor in PR that put her over the top. Of course, the Sanders campaign and his supporters claim that since the super-delegates can in theory change their mind, she hasn't really clinched the nomination. However, the chances of enough super-delegates switching to Sanders is almost the same as the likelihood that they would switch to me (to be clear, if nominated I would not run, and if elected I would not serve).

I'm not sure why you were hoping that Sanders was someone going to secure the nomination in California. He had no chance of coming any close to doing so, even if he won here.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

My personal opinion of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with party lines and has been constant for decades. I root for Sanders for two reasons.

1. He's a lot more honest than the average politician. Although I disagree with his economics I know he means what he says. And he's not a hawk and he's not all that fond of our wars, although he's not as against them as I would like.
2. He's not Hillary.

[Cerin]

It's frankly dishonest for media sources to say that Clinton has clinched the nomination. She can't secure the number of delegates needed until the convention, when super delegates will vote. In truth, she is in the same situation as Sanders -- not able to get the number of delegates needed through primary voting. It's ended up as a very close race (which no one would have predicted at the outset), and the nomination will be decided by party insiders at the convention.

Declaring Clinton the nominee is a shameful attempt by the corporate media to trick people into thinking there is no reason to vote in the remaining primaries. And I'd guess it might be a pretty effective strategy, based on C_G's remarks above, considering that he is probably better informed than the average voter.

I'm not sure why you were hoping that Sanders was someone going to secure the nomination in California. He had no chance of coming any close to doing so, even if he won here.

Just exactly as Clinton had no chance of coming close to doing so. Clinton has not secured the nomination. No one will secure the nomination until the convention.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The Hillary Campaign has announced that the AP jumped the gun with this announcement, that she hasn't secured the nomination yet.

I wonder if there is any connection between this announcement happening today and the California primary happening tomorrow. Perhaps something to discourage the Bernie supporters.

[JewelSong]

I root for Sanders for two reasons.

1. He's a lot more honest than the average politician. Although I disagree with his economics I know he means what he says. And he's not a hawk and he's not all that fond of our wars, although he's not as against them as I would like...

An interesting thing about Sanders is that people on all "sides" seem to view him as a decent, honest man. I certainly would like to see him get the nomination, although I do not believe that will happen.

Also, the last really decent, honest man we had as President was Jimmy Carter, whom, in my opinion, was a terrible President.

I am not overly fond of Hillary and for many reasons, I wish there would be a different choice. However, if the realistic choice is between Hillary and Trump, you can be damn sure I will vote for Hillary. I'd vote for just about anyone (including Voronwë ) to keep Trump out of office. I think that, should he be elected, there is a very good chance the country would be irrevocably damaged.

[Túrin Turambar]

I read that, at one point, Sanders was the only candidate still in the field whose net approval was higher than his net disapproval (as opposed to Clinton, Trump, Cruz, etc).

That said, I don't see how there's any way to say that the race will not be over tomorrow (today?). Unless California votes radically differently to any demographically-similar state, every primary and caucus except DC will have concluded with Clinton with a lead of almost three million votes, a majority of pledged delegates, a majority of superdelegates, and a strong majority of delegates overall. Even if California goes to Sanders 70-30 Clinton will still have a lead in all those metrics. The superdelegates could change their vote between now and the convention, but then the electors can technically also change their vote between the presidential election and the meeting of the electoral college. Neither would happen unless something highly-irregular happened in the interim.

[yovargas]

Trump is a despicable human being.


(Sorry to restate an obvious belief but I needed to yell that this morning.)

I read that, at one point, Sanders was the only candidate still in the field whose net approval was higher than his net disapproval (as opposed to Clinton, Trump, Cruz, etc).

Democracy!

[tinwë]

To those who say that it is dishonest to say the Clinton has the necessary votes to win the nomination, it should perhaps be noted that to date not a single superdelegate who has announced their support for Clinton has switched to Sanders. Not one. Could it happen? Theoretically, yes. Will it happen? No. Hillary Clinton is, for all intents and purposes, the Democratic nominee, and that also marks a major historical milestone as she is also the first woman to be nominated by a major party.

[Cerin]

That said, I don't see how there's any way to say that the race will not be over tomorrow (today?).

The race for pledged delegates will be over next week. But the super delegates don't get to vote until the convention. Typically we don't count votes or announce results 1 1/2 months before the votes are actually cast.

The candidates' task now is to win super delegate support. It appears all but certain that Clinton will be the nominee, but that's been said from day one. There's no telling what the next 1 1/2 months will bring; it's been a crazy year.

To those who say that it is dishonest to say the Clinton has the necessary votes to win the nomination, it should perhaps be noted that to date not a single superdelegate who has announced their support for Clinton has switched to Sanders.

The point isn't that none of the super delegates has announced a change of allegiance. The point is, none of the super delegates has voted, and none of them will vote until the convention. It is dishonest to add super delegate votes to the delegate totals before those votes are cast. An honest representation would give pledged delegate totals, and then point out that Clinton has a huge lead in super delegate endorsements.