The New American Politics thread

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I wasn't quite expecting Sanders to completely and squarely kick Hillary in the a%% last night like he did. But I think she takes SC and Nevada big. Those are her backyards and her infrastructure is there.

Wouldn't be so sure about Nevada. The most recent poll I could find has Sanders within the margin of error (4 points behind). Most polls on the topic are IMO rather outdated, as Sanders is clearly on the rise.

http://overtimepolitics.com/clinton-...-nevada-47-43/

[CaptainCrunch]

It was interesting last night because they talked about the concept that Hillary wasn't fighting a candidate, she's fighting a movement and the problem with Hillary is that she's seen as part of the establishment, and people are kind of sick of it on both sides, that's why Trump is on the rise, because he's seen as an outsider.

As well as much as Hillary has wall street and corporate America funding her, Sander's has a unique advantage with his fund raisers, because his fundraisers are giving small donations he can tap them over and over again whereas Hillary can't go back to her backers because they're at their limit.

So if Bernie keeps having success expect those little donators to open up their wallets even more. However if he falters his funds could dry up quickly.

I find this whole process this time so fascinating if I was a American I would be on this board grousing about how bad all of the candidates on both sides are. But on both sides.

The establishment candidates are fighting movements that might not care who the non-establishment candidates are or even what their policies are, they're crying out for a Martin Luther style reformation of their parties and the system.

[peter12]

It is certainly a movement.

[peter12]

One key statistic out of New Hampshire is that Sanders took the women vote. This is huge. I repeat, YUUUUUGE.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I wonder how many Bernie supporters realized he technically lost



Hillary still has to totally fall apart to not get the nomination because the super delegates (i.e the party establishment) will never back Bernie unless Hillary is a mess. What will be very interesting is if Bernie considers going third party if the Dems shut him out.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I wonder how many Bernie supporters realized he technically lost



Hillary still has to totally fall apart to not get the nomination because the super delegates (i.e the party establishment) will never back Bernie unless Hillary is a mess. What will be very interesting is if Bernie considers going third party if the Dems shut him out.

He ended winning with the updated count 13 to 9 of the delegates. What is with the count anyways, NH only had 24 delegates to allocate. Why are there super delegates that are not allocated based on popular vote??

In any case, it looks like Hillary lost in almost every demographic except with people over 45 and incomes of $200k+. She is apparently the candidate for the rich, old and entitled American.

Bernie Sanders Wins Every Demographic Group
Senator Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton among nearly every demographic group in the Democratic New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls.

He carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He beat Mrs. Clinton among previous primary voters and those participating for the first time. And he ran ahead among both moderates and liberals.

Even so, there were a few silver linings for Mrs. Clinton. While Mr. Sanders bested her among all age groups younger than 45, the two candidates polled evenly among voters aged 45 to 64. And Mrs. Clinton won the support of voters 65 and older. And, though Mrs. Clinton lost nearly every income group, she did carry voters in families earning over $200,000 per year.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-hamp...graphic-group/

[Coach]

Delegates, super-delegates, caucus', super-PACs, blah blah blah.

No wonder no one votes in the US, what a cluster-fata of a leadership voting process. Is there a democracy built in there somewhere? I can't see one.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

He ended winning with the updated count 13 to 9 of the delegates. What is with the count anyways, NH only had 24 delegates to allocate. Why are there super delegates that are not allocated based on popular vote??

In any case, it looks like Hillary lost in almost every demographic except with people over 45 and incomes of $200k+. She is apparently the candidate for the rich, old and entitle American.


http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-hamp...graphic-group/

The talley that SCD was posting includes New Hampshire's superdelegates, of which there are 8, six of which have already committed to Clinton. It's worth mentioning that these super-delegates can change their allegience if they want to.
So even if Sanders continues to win states by the same margin as New Hampshire (unlikely), he would need a widespread defection of super-delegates from Clinton to him, which is only really conceivable in the case of a major Clinton scandal.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by octothorp

The talley that SCD was posting includes New Hampshire's superdelegates, of which there are 8, six of which have already committed to Clinton. It's worth mentioning that these super-delegates can change their allegience if they want to.
So even if Sanders continues to win states by the same margin as New Hampshire (unlikely), he would need a widespread defection of super-delegates from Clinton to him, which is only really conceivable in the case of a major Clinton scandal.

Email scandal is still ongoing but the DOJ is dragging their feet on this. I actually hope Sanders can pull off a miracle here, Clinton is just way way too dirty, flip-floppy and corrupt for my liking.

[Language]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Delegates, super-delegates, caucus', super-PACs, blah blah blah.

No wonder no one votes in the US, what a cluster-fata of a leadership voting process. Is there a democracy built in there somewhere? I can't see one.

Agreed. As someone who doesn't know the in's and out's of the American voting process, I'm super confused regarding what the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucus is all about and it's overall relevance.

[CaptainCrunch]

Bernie really should be asking the question about the DOJ dragging their feet on the Clinton investigation.

If he knows that there are trust issues with Hillary, and that she is as establishment as it gets then this is a pretty big hole that he can exploit to position himself as an integrity candidate.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Bernie really should be asking the question about the DOJ dragging their feet on the Clinton investigation.

If he knows that there are trust issues with Hillary, and that she is as establishment as it gets then this is a pretty big hole that he can exploit to position himself as an integrity candidate.

Bernie doesn't play like that.
He even said he's sick of hearing about Hillarys email

With Trump and Bernie doing so well, and the take away from that being that the people are sick of the establishment politicians, I am really looking forward to the next 4 years. I am so glad I am not an American, but if it is anyone but Hillary, or Bush, or maybe Kasich, there is going to be a yuge amount of turmoil for the next 4 years, and then I wonder how the 2020 election will go.
It's exciting, but I am glad I am not there.
Bernie would completely piss off the right, way more than Obama
Trump, would screw up a lot of things, and piss off everyone.
Cruz is snake religious extremist, and I can't seeing Rubio being a player now.

These past 7 1/2 years, will have been very quiet compared to , what's about to possibly happen.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Bernie really should be asking the question about the DOJ dragging their feet on the Clinton investigation.

If he knows that there are trust issues with Hillary, and that she is as establishment as it gets then this is a pretty big hole that he can exploit to position himself as an integrity candidate.

He has said that he won't politicize the matter. For him to change on that point would not be good for his campaign.

Of course, others on his behalf could certainly start asking the questions....

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Language

Agreed. As someone who doesn't know the in's and out's of the American voting process, I'm super confused regarding what the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucus is all about and it's overall relevance.

There is far far too much complicated process and excessive voting in the States. Why the heck is campaigning allowed two years into some elected officials four year terms? Why do Americans want or need to have elected county clerks, attorney generals, etc? Why are super-pacs, and their excessive financing, allowed in the first place? Why are there super delegates that can vote however they want when selecting a leader, instead of following the will of their party membership? Why are there partisan boards that can determine the boundaries of voting districts?

The whole system seems geared towards creating a culture of voter apathy and taking power away from the regular voter. There are so many exploitable holes in every part of the process.

[DuffMan]

But it seems like that's what voters are saying when they have Trump and Bernie in the lead.
They are sick of the political garbage, so they are voting against the establishment candidates.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

But it seems like that's what voters are saying when they have Trump and Bernie in the lead.
They are sick of the political garbage, so they are voting against the establishment candidates.

Their anger is poorly place. Congress, not the president holds most of the power to draw up changes that fix most of the political nonsense. While people have had enough, there won't be meaningful change until there is a wholesale change of Congressional establishment politicians.

I can't ever see parties fielding candidates that would effect that level of wide sweeping process reform. Thank god for a non-partisan standardized entities like Elections Canada.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

But it seems like that's what voters are saying when they have Trump and Bernie in the lead.
They are sick of the political garbage, so they are voting against the establishment candidates.

But it doesn't matter when the system is specifically built for established politicians to just vote which ever way they please. They can protest vote all they want but nothing actually has to change.

It's incredibly ridiculous, especially for a nation that prides itself as being a haven of democracy. It's a f***ing joke.

[peter12]

David Frum says what I have been saying for like 6 months now - these are internal revolts against the parties' established oligarchies.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...revolt/419118/

[octothorp]

So, just maybe the Tea Party is right in that the only way to overhaul the system is to grind the current system to a complete halt? (I don't know if that's right by design or right by accident.)
Maybe the socialist wing of the Democrats need to take the same militant approach as the Tea Party, aggressively challenging establishment Democrats at every opportunity, until they've got enough to dictate conditions to their party?
Could the Tea Party and the Warrenists ever find both the common ground and critical mass to work together to force an overhaul to the system?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Email scandal is still ongoing but the DOJ is dragging their feet on this. I actually hope Sanders can pull off a miracle here, Clinton is just way way too dirty, flip-floppy and corrupt for my liking.

I take the position that most of this bad publicity against Hillary is a concerted effort by the Republicans to do a character assassination. I think Sanders feels the same way and that is why he doesn't use it.