2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:46 pm UTC

The problem is that Cruz is almost as unpalatable as Trump as far as the Republican establishment is concerned.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:52 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The Trump supporters I know of personally still seem to be in denial over how close this guy is to Hitler.

"He doesn't _really_ mean a religious test." "He doesn't _really_ mean a muslim database, does he?" I still hear this sort of stuff all the time. Trump supporters in my experience tend to not really know the facts of the guy. Anecdotal evidence of course, but that's how I see it right now.

If Republicans are making a mistake, its that they are overemphasizing their "conservative ideals", which has made them grow increasingly disconnected from the average American (or even: the average Republican)


He's really not close to Hitler. At least, not yet. A better analogy would be any number of other past leaders that were pretty casually racist. It's something he is, but it's not his focus. Hitler was way more militant(including, yknow, actual military service).

But, hey, all arguments regarding Trump apparently come pre-godwined for your convenience these days.

KnightExemplar wrote:We shall see how Cruz fairs against Trump tonight. A 8 PT lead in a primary is nothing given the standard deviation. Trump chances of winning has gone down measurably.


This is also a good point. In only a week, the amount of Trump support has dropped dramatically. Cruz won Kansas and Maine by a comfortable margin, while Trump barely edged a win in the other two states (35% vs 31% Rubio in Kentucky, 41% vs 37% Cruz in Louisiana).

In contrast, Cruz had 20%+ wins over Trump in both Kansas and Maine. That's only after what... 4 days of negative advertisements (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday ads, since it really only started after Trump's Super-Tuesday win)? I think Tyndmyr is grossly underestimating the power of SuperPAC negative campaign ads and their ability to sway the public.[/quote]

Florida is winner take all with no minimum bar. If Trump wins there, it's all over but the crying.

Best bet right now is that he does well enough until he gets there, wins Florida, and get's an unassailable lead(barring a brokered convention, and we've already discussed what a crapstorm it would be for that to be arranged to deny the apparent populist choice). There are things that could alter that, but a few negative ads are not sufficient, I think. You've got to keep in mind that early votes are already rolling in, so time to alter course is comparatively short.

LaserGuy wrote:The problem is that Cruz is almost as unpalatable as Trump as far as the Republican establishment is concerned.


Yes. Rubio is the closest thing the establishment has to a shot. And Rubio is very nearly finished. Long shot, even now.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jseah » Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:38 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:If the US Government buys stocks, then the US Government gets voting rights to those companies. With the amount of money we're talking about here, the US Government would be a large minority shareholder of a huge number of companies. I don't think the American people would like that.

If the US Government buys bonds, then the US Government can get screwed by bankruptcies and such. It'd basically be the government entering the finance sector hardcore. Imagine if the US Government were holding Mortgaged-Backed securities at the height of the housing bubble of 2008! Too big to fail indeed.

No, you would just act like any other hedge fund, risk and all. What's there not to like about earning money?

KnightExemplar wrote:Honestly, the best "investment" the US Government can make is to issue its own debt to itself: akin to the current Social Security Trust Fund (which currently owns $2.8 Trillion of the US's own debt). This "circular" dependency makes things harder to understand I guess, but it honestly is a solid approach to this problem.<...>
But yeah, the Social Security Trust Fund is a good example of what level of money we're talking about here. If the Social Security Trust Fund owned stocks, they would be larger than SPY ($175 Billion), Vanguard Total Market( $389 Billion), combined... by an order of magnitude.

Well, SWFs are generally big. A US one would be big even for SWFs. It's not like market-influencing size of investments haven't been handled before, not an impossible hurdle.

EDIT: and yes, of course, if you have debt, you would pay that first (buying your own debt is like paying it, the accounting exists only for different departments, like you mentioned).
I was considering the more unlikely scenario of the government running a structural surplus and proposing a way to recycle that surplus into the economy while still having the ability to draw down on it. There is no government debt left to buy (or all debt is internal plus a chunk of extra change).
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:48 pm UTC

jseah wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:If the US Government buys stocks, then the US Government gets voting rights to those companies. With the amount of money we're talking about here, the US Government would be a large minority shareholder of a huge number of companies. I don't think the American people would like that.

If the US Government buys bonds, then the US Government can get screwed by bankruptcies and such. It'd basically be the government entering the finance sector hardcore. Imagine if the US Government were holding Mortgaged-Backed securities at the height of the housing bubble of 2008! Too big to fail indeed.

No, you would just act like any other hedge fund, risk and all. What's there not to like about earning money?


I guess 2008 happened 8 years ago, so a lot of people have forgotten about it. I haven't however. I do not believe the US Government should be in a position to take market risks like that.

KnightExemplar wrote:Honestly, the best "investment" the US Government can make is to issue its own debt to itself: akin to the current Social Security Trust Fund (which currently owns $2.8 Trillion of the US's own debt). This "circular" dependency makes things harder to understand I guess, but it honestly is a solid approach to this problem.<...>
But yeah, the Social Security Trust Fund is a good example of what level of money we're talking about here. If the Social Security Trust Fund owned stocks, they would be larger than SPY ($175 Billion), Vanguard Total Market( $389 Billion), combined... by an order of magnitude.

Well, SWFs are generally big. A US one would be big even for SWFs. It's not like market-influencing size of investments haven't been handled before, not an impossible hurdle.


I don't think you're realizing just how big the Social Security Trust Fund actually is.

Today's market volume was $4.6 Billion on the NYSE (http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^TV.N) It would take over two years (remember there are only 5 trading days a week, roughly 260 trading days a year if we ignore holidays. Over 500+ days) for the US Government to purchase $2.5 Trillion in stocks, assuming current market volume. That's if the US Government monopolized all trades on the market for the next two years. Entering a position of this size with that amount of trade volume would inevitably raise stock prices (ie: US Government gets a bad deal on the trade). Entering with a more reasonable speed (ie: slower volume) means taking even longer than two years to enter the position.

The size of this pool of money dwarfs the entire amount of the entire stock market. And that's ONLY the Social security trust fund.

Strangely enough, only the US Treasury / Debt is a financial instrument that is large enough for the US Government to invest into, without causing dramatic market disturbances.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KittenKaboodle » Tue Mar 08, 2016 11:19 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:grossly underestimating the power of SuperPAC negative campaign ads and their ability to sway the public.


Um, this looks to me a lot like the cure being worse than the disease.
But, sure, if Goldstein Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler, then, double plus good, the ends justify the means.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:22 am UTC

I dunno if its about "worse than the disease" than a recognition that SuperPACs + infinite money is how you do things in today's politics. Its the most effective strategy.

The best strategy to end SuperPACs is to create a new SuperPAC designed to support candidates who don't like SuperPACs
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:09 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I dunno if its about "worse than the disease" than a recognition that SuperPACs + infinite money is how you do things in today's politics. Its the most effective strategy.

The best strategy to end SuperPACs is to create a new SuperPAC designed to support candidates who don't like SuperPACs
No, the best strategy is revisit a bunch of electoral court cases. Maybe feed Thomas some deep fried donuts.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Isaac Hill » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:14 am UTC

Donald Trump isn't America's Hitler, he's America's Kim Jong Un: a goofy-haired xenophobe who inherited his status from his father, and alienates everyone outside his own demographic, except Dennis Rodman. Trump's not only had small children sing his praises, like Kim Jong Un, but the Trump song lyric "deal from strength or get crushed every time" sounds like it was translated from Korean. The only difference is that Trump puts his family name on every building he can, while the Kims put Dear Leader's face on very building they can, and the only reason for that is if an artist ever truly captured the essence of Trump's hair, the sculpture would immediately turn into bats and fly away.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:05 am UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I dunno if its about "worse than the disease" than a recognition that SuperPACs + infinite money is how you do things in today's politics. Its the most effective strategy.

The best strategy to end SuperPACs is to create a new SuperPAC designed to support candidates who don't like SuperPACs
No, the best strategy is revisit a bunch of electoral court cases. Maybe feed Thomas some deep fried donuts.


Yeah... you do realize that only court cases go to the Supreme Court, right? Who do you think would scrape together the money to fund a legal case against... some hypothetical government on this issue?

That's right, a SuperPAC. Court cases take money ya know.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:09 am UTC

So, Bernie appears to have pulled off the largest upset in the history of presidential primaries – winning Michigan even though Nate Silver's model showed Hillary ahead by 21.3 points and gave her a 99% chance of victory. He's still a definite underdog, but this win gives him a huge boost.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to dominate the Republican race. He's won Michigan, with Cruz and Kasich essentially tying for second; and he's also won Mississippi with a near majority of the vote, dispelling the notion of a swing toward Cruz in the South. At this point I think none of the anti-Trump candidates stands a chance of beating him in the primary campaign.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:30 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I dunno if its about "worse than the disease" than a recognition that SuperPACs + infinite money is how you do things in today's politics. Its the most effective strategy.

The best strategy to end SuperPACs is to create a new SuperPAC designed to support candidates who don't like SuperPACs
No, the best strategy is revisit a bunch of electoral court cases. Maybe feed Thomas some deep fried donuts.


Yeah... you do realize that only court cases go to the Supreme Court, right? Who do you think would scrape together the money to fund a legal case against... some hypothetical government on this issue?

That's right, a SuperPAC. Court cases take money ya know.

SCOTUS chooses whatever case it damn well pleases based on a 4 justice agenda. (if 4 of them thinks it important, they'll hear it). There's even cases where SCOTUS hears a handwritten plea, mostly because a majority of judges wanted to change the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright

Lazar wrote:So, Bernie appears to have pulled off the largest upset in the history of presidential primaries – winning Michigan even though Nate Silver's polling model showed Hillary ahead by 21.3 points and gave her a 99% chance of victory. He's still a definite underdog, but this win gives him a huge boost.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to dominate the Republican race. He's won Michigan, with Cruz and Kasich essentially tying for second; and he's also won Mississippi with a near majority of the vote, dispelling the notion of a swing toward Cruz in the South.
Underdog is an understatement for Bernie. His chances are still ridiculously low. Case in point, even after Bernie outperformed his polls, he ended up splitting the delegates 50/50. He needs to crush it, not just squeak by.

Trump hits back hard, but the real surprise is how badly Rubio is fading.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse for Marco Rubio, it has tonight. Buried in the drama is the fact that Rubio has yet to win a single delegate in tonight’s primaries. Not only did he fall woefully short of hitting Mississippi’s 15 percent delegate threshold and 6 percentage points shy of hitting Michigan’s 15 percent threshold, his current 18 percent in Idaho is just barely below the Gem State’s 20 percent threshold. Luckily for Rubio, Hawaii’s lack of a delegate threshold is likely to save him from a humiliating shutout. But Rubio’s mainland fortunes couldn’t have fallen any further.
Rubio has gotten 0 delegates today, (Hawaii hasn't reported yet) if you had told me that Jeb, Walker, Rubio, and Rand were all gonna fail for 2016, I would have taken you up on it 100 to 1. I'm really surprised at their combined failure given how Cruz and Rubio are so similar. [I'm cheating because I really should have included Cruz as a top contender as well]
So much for "Crubio", say hello to Jed Kruz.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... epublican/
3/8/16 predictions*:
According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Donald Trump has a 72% chance of winning the Florida primary. Then Rubio for 2nd.
According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Donald Trump has a 57% chance of winning the Illinois primary. Then Rubio for 2nd.
According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Donald Trump has a 46% chance of winning the North Carolina primary. Then Rubio for 2nd.
According to our latest polls-plus forecast, John Kasich has a 60% chance of winning the Ohio primary. Then Trump for 2nd.
* These are winner take all states, so none of this splitting proportionately crap. Go big or go home.
Holy crap, I just realized that my primary is up next, and it actually matters. lol

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:39 am UTC

sardia wrote:Underdog is an understatement for Bernie. His chances are still ridiculously low. Case in point, even after Bernie outperformed his polls, he ended up splitting the delegates 50/50. He needs to crush it, not just squeak by.

Yes, but I'd reiterate how massively he outperformed the polls. If they can be off by 23% in a large and well surveyed state like Michigan, then it would appear that anything is possible. In order to win, Bernie will have to rely on comparable swings in large purple and blue states – which, indeed, is no mean feat.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:49 am UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I dunno if its about "worse than the disease" than a recognition that SuperPACs + infinite money is how you do things in today's politics. Its the most effective strategy.

The best strategy to end SuperPACs is to create a new SuperPAC designed to support candidates who don't like SuperPACs
No, the best strategy is revisit a bunch of electoral court cases. Maybe feed Thomas some deep fried donuts.


Yeah... you do realize that only court cases go to the Supreme Court, right? Who do you think would scrape together the money to fund a legal case against... some hypothetical government on this issue?

That's right, a SuperPAC. Court cases take money ya know.

SCOTUS chooses whatever case it damn well pleases based on a 4 justice agenda. (if 4 of them thinks it important, they'll hear it). There's even cases where SCOTUS hears a handwritten plea, mostly because a majority of judges wanted to change the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright


Yes. But you still need a court case to exist before the Supreme Court will be able to make a decision. If a court case doesn't exist, then the Supreme Court can't hear it. Someone needs to start off the Supreme Court process.

The Supreme Court can't just legislate a new law from the bench. It needs to wait around for a court case to be made. Someone needs to sue somebody in a lower court (or something) before there's even a case for the Supreme Court to hear.

Lazar wrote:
sardia wrote:Underdog is an understatement for Bernie. His chances are still ridiculously low. Case in point, even after Bernie outperformed his polls, he ended up splitting the delegates 50/50. He needs to crush it, not just squeak by.

Yes, but I'd reiterate how massively he outperformed the polls. If they can be off by 23% in a large and well surveyed state like Michigan, then it would appear that anything is possible. In order to win, Bernie will have to rely on comparable swings in large purple and blue states – which, indeed, is no mean feat.


Clinton leads Sanders 1221 vs 571 delegates out of 4,765 available. Clinton is also expected to take all the Super Delegates. Sanders can't just squeek by with 50/50 in States that are grossly favorable to him (ie: white Northern States).

More precisely: of the 2973 delegates left, Sanders needs to win 1812 of them, or basically beat Clinton 60:40 in the remaining contests.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:36 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Clinton leads Sanders 1221 vs 571 delegates out of 4,765 available. Clinton is also expected to take all the Super Delegates.

But it seems to me that's predicated on the assumption that she's going to win in any case. If Sanders wins the popular vote, surely it would become much more awkward for all the Super Delegates to vote against the Democratic base. Risks winning the battle but losing the war to demotivate their own troops in that fashion.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:44 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Clinton leads Sanders 1221 vs 571 delegates out of 4,765 available. Clinton is also expected to take all the Super Delegates. Sanders can't just squeek by with 50/50 in States that are grossly favorable to him (ie: white Northern States).

More precisely: of the 2973 delegates left, Sanders needs to win 1812 of them, or basically beat Clinton 60:40 in the remaining contests.

This is misleading. Superdelegates are not pledged to a candidate (that's what makes them superdelegates), and by custom they'll change their vote so as not to steal the nomination from the winner of the primaries – any plausible Sanders victory scenario assumes this. Bernie doesn't need to win 60% in the remaining contests (an idea which is downright Sisyphean), he needs to win 54%. As I've said, if either party tries to steal the nomination from the popular vote winner in the current climate, it will spell the destruction of that party.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Carlington » Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:57 am UTC

Most sources I've seen talk about superdelegates seem to have been talking as though Hillary will necessarily take all of them and that this is a foregone conclusion. This is to such an extent that until I just went and looked it up, I assumed that superdelegates vote as a bloc for one nominee or another. It seems like that's not the case, though, so nothing necessarily says that they'll all vote the same way or all vote for Hillary.

It also seems that a lot of superdelegates are given their seats by virtue of holding other elected positions in the party. Now, I'm not familiar with the American political process to any huge extent, but I have a notion that the public is largely disengaged. Would a superdelegate who holds some elected position in a state that voted by a reasonably large majority for Bernie, for example, be more likely to vote for Bernie because they fear that contradicting the electorate in their state could lead to later consequences the next time their position is contested? I know that here, elected people at all levels of government need to keep the electorate onside in just about everything, because most elections are compulsory so more people who are put out will show up and vote.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:06 am UTC

Carlington wrote:Most sources I've seen talk about superdelegates seem to have been talking as though Hillary will necessarily take all of them and that this is a foregone conclusion. This is to such an extent that until I just went and looked it up, I assumed that superdelegates vote as a bloc for one nominee or another. It seems like that's not the case, though, so nothing necessarily says that they'll all vote the same way or all vote for Hillary.

Yes, each superdelegate votes freely at the convention. They tend to publicly endorse a candidate ahead of time (and a majority of them have endorsed Hillary), but this isn't binding.

Would a superdelegate who holds some elected position in a state that voted by a reasonably large majority for Bernie, for example, be more likely to vote for Bernie because they fear that contradicting the electorate in their state could lead to later consequences the next time their position is contested?

That's one factor. Another factor (presently, a stronger one) is that a huge share of currently serving Democratic officials owe their careers to the Clintons or are otherwise beholden to them, and don't want to earn a spot on their enemies list by "betraying" them. Vermont's other senator, Pat Leahy, has angered many progressives by announcing his intention to vote for Clinton even though Sanders won 86% in the primary there.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:22 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Clinton leads Sanders 1221 vs 571 delegates out of 4,765 available. Clinton is also expected to take all the Super Delegates. Sanders can't just squeek by with 50/50 in States that are grossly favorable to him (ie: white Northern States).

More precisely: of the 2973 delegates left, Sanders needs to win 1812 of them, or basically beat Clinton 60:40 in the remaining contests.

This is misleading. Superdelegates are not pledged to a candidate (that's what makes them superdelegates), and by custom they'll change their vote so as not to steal the nomination from the winner of the primaries – any plausible Sanders victory scenario assumes this. Bernie doesn't need to win 60% in the remaining contests (an idea which is downright Sisyphean), he needs to win 54%. As I've said, if either party tries to steal the nomination from the popular vote winner in the current climate, it will spell the destruction of that party.


Precisely. Which means Sanders ain't out yet, but Clinton's definitely favored. If it ends up being a really narrow majority, Clinton could maybe squeak it out, with some uproar, but if it's significant at all, there's only so much that can practically be done without the party collapsing on itself, and losing not only the general, but a lot of voter faith.

Trump's drawing close to this as well. Cruz needs Rubio to drop, asap. Cruz is, marginally, more centrist than Trump, so he stands to benefit if Rubio folds. I'd say the same for Kasich, but honestly, he's not pulling enough numbers to really matter. Strategically, then, it appears I should vote for Cruz. I am not terribly thrilled about this, but it seems to be the only plausible influence to be wielded. That said, by the time my primary comes, it'll likely be irrelevant.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mcd001 » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:33 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:That's one factor. Another factor (presently, a stronger one) is that a huge share of currently serving Democratic officials owe their careers to the Clintons or are otherwise beholden to them, and don't want to earn a spot on their enemies list by "betraying" them. Vermont's other senator, Pat Leahy, has angered many progressives by announcing his intention to vote for Clinton even though Sanders won 86% in the primary there.

There's a third factor I don't see discussed much, which is the possibility that the FBI's investigation into Hillary's handling of classified information will result in a criminal indictment. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say this would be a Bad Thing for her campaign...

In that event, would the Democrats have time to round up another candidate to run against Bernie? Would they even try if they could, or would Bernie just stroll across the finish line to the nominations? Would most Dem voters even care if one of their candidate was indicted for violations of federal laws?

I have no idea.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:15 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:
Lazar wrote:That's one factor. Another factor (presently, a stronger one) is that a huge share of currently serving Democratic officials owe their careers to the Clintons or are otherwise beholden to them, and don't want to earn a spot on their enemies list by "betraying" them. Vermont's other senator, Pat Leahy, has angered many progressives by announcing his intention to vote for Clinton even though Sanders won 86% in the primary there.

There's a third factor I don't see discussed much, which is the possibility that the FBI's investigation into Hillary's handling of classified information will result in a criminal indictment. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say this would be a Bad Thing for her campaign...

In that event, would the Democrats have time to round up another candidate to run against Bernie? Would they even try if they could, or would Bernie just stroll across the finish line to the nominations? Would most Dem voters even care if one of their candidate was indicted for violations of federal laws?

I have no idea.


At this point, I think it's safe to say that a newly introduced candidate just wouldn't have any momentum, and not enough time to pull anything off.

I suppose Hillary could just keep running. But it probably doesn't help. Granted, she's already kind of got an image that matches that, so it would hurt her a great deal less than it might another candidate, but it would probably end up being a net win for Bernie.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:03 pm UTC

My primary is coming up next and I need to go over my tactical voting rubric. I'm thinking kasich if rubio drops or fades more. We still have Guam and the Marianas before Tuesday big vote. I don't think I Cruz is any better than Trump.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:07 pm UTC

sardia wrote:My primary is coming up next and I need to go over my tactical voting rubric. I'm thinking kasich if rubio drops or fades more. We still have Guam and the Marianas before Tuesday big vote. I don't think I Cruz is any better than Trump.


I'm having trouble with that myself. Cruz is...not great. Is he better than Trump? Maybe. I'm not 100% on that.

You've still got at least some options, though...I suspect it'll be a forgone conclusion by Apr 26th. It seems odd that in primaries, the votes of some states are always so...pointless.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:45 pm UTC

Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:53 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:Bloomberg announces that he will, for the third time, not run for president. Let's all pour out a Big Gulp in his honor.

If a Republican ran on the basis of ending governmental gridlock, would they win? I get the sense that Americans in general are pretty fed up with the ineffectiveness of the government. How much does that extend to the Republican base? Or were they all cheering as the Republican party shut down Obama?
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:00 pm UTC

jseah wrote:No, you would just act like any other hedge fund, risk and all.
Pedantic technical point: That is basically the exact opposite of what the word "hedge" means. It means investments that are only risky in isolation chosen in a way that a detrimental event to one part is a beneficial event to another; like betting on both black, white, and green in roulette. Among other things, the hedge fund managers of the aughts are guilty of fraudulent advertising.
KittenKaboodle wrote:Um, this looks to me a lot like the cure being worse than the disease.
But, sure, if Goldstein Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler, then, double plus good, the ends justify the means.
Could you link an actual ad comparing him to Hitler? The anti-trump ads I've seen so far seem fair and reasonable.
Isaac Hill wrote:The only difference is that Trump puts his family name on every building he can
That's an established marketing tactic and I'd suspect that (Erasing this election cycle) had someone else acquired Trump's real estate business, they'd still continue stamping "Trump" on the buildings the same way Ray Crock continued to stamp "McDonald's" on everything.
KnightExemplar wrote:Yes. But you still need a court case to exist before the Supreme Court will be able to make a decision. If a court case doesn't exist, then the Supreme Court can't hear it. Someone needs to start off the Supreme Court process.
If you can convince me the supreme court is nearly as favorable to this decision as it was Gideon v. Wainwright I'll file the suit myself; I have many more resources than Gideon. Although, realistically some lawyer is probably going to do it pro bono first, if for nothing else, the huge cap-feather winning a supreme court case provides.
Last edited by Quizatzhaderac on Tue May 03, 2016 8:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Yes. But you still need a court case to exist before the Supreme Court will be able to make a decision. If a court case doesn't exist, then the Supreme Court can't hear it. Someone needs to start off the Supreme Court process.
If you can convince me the supreme court is nearly as favorable to this decision as it was Gideon v. Wainwright I'll file the suit myself; I have many more resources than Gideon. Although, realistically some lawyer is probably going to do it pro bono first, if for nothing else, the huge cap-feather winning a supreme court case provides.


You know what would help your case? Asking for donations on the internet. IE: forming either a lobbying group or PAC to help pool the money from across the country to help manage resources and centralize your cause.

Ignoring this fact is ignoring the new reality of politics. SuperPACs are basically the ultimate form of crowdfunding. I mean honestly, tell me why I should support you (when you aren't even taking donations) when I can just give $100 to Mayday (the Anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC). Refusing help from me does not help your cause at all. And yes, I've contributed some $20 to various political causes in the past.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:37 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:My primary is coming up next and I need to go over my tactical voting rubric. I'm thinking kasich if rubio drops or fades more. We still have Guam and the Marianas before Tuesday big vote. I don't think I Cruz is any better than Trump.


I'm having trouble with that myself. Cruz is...not great. Is he better than Trump? Maybe. I'm not 100% on that.

You've still got at least some options, though...I suspect it'll be a forgone conclusion by Apr 26th. It seems odd that in primaries, the votes of some states are always so...pointless.
it's the m middle of March and my primary vote still matters. I think that counts as progress.
I'm surprised that neither Cruz or Trump haven't reached out to the establishment yet. You know, hedging on positions towards the center, being less outsider more conventional. Though I am reminded of when Trump tried being more presidential and he got beat down in the polls for it.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:39 pm UTC

Trump has begun to centralize. His flip-flop on immigration H1-B Visas will cater towards Sillion Valley / liberals in a strange way (ie: people who need highly-skilled immigrants to fill their positions).

I'm 100% certain Trump is a morphing candidate. I have no idea what he really stands for, but he's changing his official stances already. In part because Trump probably wants to stay the center of attention. So its part of his strategy to keep the cameras on him.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:18 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:You know what would help your case? Asking for donations on the internet.
Having the support of the supreme court is sufficient to winning a supreme court case. I'm not sure who else you're suggesting we need to lobby if that was a given.

Lobbying probably will have it's place in creating crew anti-corruption laws, but as it stands passing many of those laws are moot.
I mean honestly, tell me why I should support you
You shouldn't? I'm also going to go to lunch soon and you shouldn't support me in that either. You wouldn't be a party to the case; your opinion doesn't matter, even in principle; and money involved is trivial on the scale of national politics.

Go ahead and support your anti-super-pac super-pac it'll probably do some good. But that good won't be making sitting supreme court justices lose their reelections.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:50 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Clinton leads Sanders 1221 vs 571 delegates out of 4,765 available. Clinton is also expected to take all the Super Delegates. Sanders can't just squeek by with 50/50 in States that are grossly favorable to him (ie: white Northern States).

More precisely: of the 2973 delegates left, Sanders needs to win 1812 of them, or basically beat Clinton 60:40 in the remaining contests.

This is misleading. Superdelegates are not pledged to a candidate (that's what makes them superdelegates), and by custom they'll change their vote so as not to steal the nomination from the winner of the primaries – any plausible Sanders victory scenario assumes this. Bernie doesn't need to win 60% in the remaining contests (an idea which is downright Sisyphean), he needs to win 54%. As I've said, if either party tries to steal the nomination from the popular vote winner in the current climate, it will spell the destruction of that party.


I used those statistics on purpose.

I noted that Clinton is expected to win the Super Delegates, but the math above includes the Super Delegates as part of the 2973 number (since as you noted: Clinton hasn't technically won those yet, although she's expected to). Clinton currently has 1221 delegates won period.

If Sanders can manage to win the popular vote (unlikely, but I guess its possible) and thus manages to convince the Super Delegates to vote for him. In any case, Sanders requires 60% of the remaining delegates, and 717 of them are Superdelegates (of which Clinton has already received 460 pledges. Sanders only has 23 superdelegates pledged for him right now.)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:53 pm UTC

That is a lie. Clinton has 760 delegates won, period.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:That is a lie. Clinton has 760 delegates won, period.


Hmmm... Google screwed me.

My numbers are off. Google reports superdelegates as part of Hilary's wins already. In any case, I think it is reasonable to expect the pledged Super-delegates to go forward with their pledge. Washington Post also was reporting the 400+ super-delegates as part of Clinton's win already, so a lot of my data was confirming the 1221ish number for Clinton.

EDIT: The new numbers therefore are 760 vs 548, but with Clinton having a 460+ Superdelegate pledge is still a key advantage over Sanders. Sanders needs 1835 delegates while Clinton needs 1623, of which 460 have already pledged support to Clinton.

EDIT2: My math is clearly wrong. Give me a sec...

EDIT3: 4483 total delegates. Clinton has 770, Sanders has 551, ignoring Superdelegates entirely. 3175 delegates remaining (including the Superdelegates). Candidates need to hit 2242 for a majority. Clinton needs 1472 more, Sanders needs 1691 more. IE: Sanders needs 53% of the remaining delegates, while Clinton needs 47% of the remaining, although most of the 714 Superdelegates have shown support for Clinton.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:23 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:03 pm UTC

Okay, I forgive you. But let me reiterate that none of the superdelegates are pledged – superdelegates are literally defined as unpledged delegates. I take it you're using the word "pledged" in the vernacular sense that they've announced their intentions, but in this context that word has a very particular meaning which does not fit them.

And again, no, it's not reasonable to expect that they will go through with their promise if this means contravening the will of the voters. There's precedent for this: in 2008 a great number of Clinton's superdelegates switched their votes after Obama won in the primaries. If things go differently this time, it will be a drastic power grab by the party establishment.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:28 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Lazar wrote:That is a lie. Clinton has 760 delegates won, period.


Hmmm... Google screwed me.

My numbers are off. Google reports superdelegates as part of Hilary's wins already. In any case, I think it is reasonable to expect the pledged Super-delegates to go forward with their pledge. Washington Post also was reporting the 400+ super-delegates as part of Clinton's win already, so a lot of my data was confirming the 1221ish number for Clinton.

EDIT: The new numbers therefore are 760 vs 548, but with Clinton having a 460+ Superdelegate pledge is still a key advantage over Sanders. Sanders needs 1835 delegates while Clinton needs 1623, of which 460 have already pledged support to Clinton.

EDIT2: My math is clearly wrong. Give me a sec...

EDIT3: 4483 total delegates. Clinton has 770, Sanders has 551, ignoring Superdelegates entirely. 3175 delegates remaining (including the Superdelegates). Candidates need to hit 2242 for a majority. Clinton needs 1472 more, Sanders needs 1691 more. IE: Sanders needs 53% of the remaining delegates, while Clinton needs 47% of the remaining, although most of the 714 Superdelegates have shown support for Clinton.


The more important figure is what percentage of the remaining non-superdelegates each candidate needs. After you pull out the super delegates, you've got only 3781 delegates remaining, of which 1321 have already been assigned. So, Sanders needs 1691 out of 2460, or about 68.7% of them.

That's a little rough.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Lazar wrote:That is a lie. Clinton has 760 delegates won, period.


Hmmm... Google screwed me.

My numbers are off. Google reports superdelegates as part of Hilary's wins already. In any case, I think it is reasonable to expect the pledged Super-delegates to go forward with their pledge. Washington Post also was reporting the 400+ super-delegates as part of Clinton's win already, so a lot of my data was confirming the 1221ish number for Clinton.

EDIT: The new numbers therefore are 760 vs 548, but with Clinton having a 460+ Superdelegate pledge is still a key advantage over Sanders. Sanders needs 1835 delegates while Clinton needs 1623, of which 460 have already pledged support to Clinton.

EDIT2: My math is clearly wrong. Give me a sec...

EDIT3: 4483 total delegates. Clinton has 770, Sanders has 551, ignoring Superdelegates entirely. 3175 delegates remaining (including the Superdelegates). Candidates need to hit 2242 for a majority. Clinton needs 1472 more, Sanders needs 1691 more. IE: Sanders needs 53% of the remaining delegates, while Clinton needs 47% of the remaining, although most of the 714 Superdelegates have shown support for Clinton.


The more important figure is what percentage of the remaining non-superdelegates each candidate needs. After you pull out the super delegates, you've got only 3781 delegates remaining, of which 1321 have already been assigned. So, Sanders needs 1691 out of 2460, or about 68.7% of them.

That's a little rough.


Your math is a bit off.

There are 2461 delegates remaining if we ignore Superdelegates. Candidates would need to hit 1885 delegates (without super-delegates) by that math. Clinton needs 1115, while Sanders needs 1334, or Sanders needs 1334 / 2461 == 54% of the remaining delegates.

You gotta recalculate all the numbers "without superdelegates".
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:47 pm UTC

Yeah, 54% is the figure. That's still a hell of a task, but it arguably falls within the more optimistic bounds of reality. My main point here is that I think the pledged and unpledged delegates need to be thought of as two separate, though sequential, issues. And I do think a number of media outlets have done the people a disservice by not distinguishing between them.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:14 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:You gotta recalculate all the numbers "without superdelegates".


Oops, slipped up a bit there, yeah.

I think 54% is possible, yeah, but I don't know that it's probable. I definitely give Clinton good odds. Especially because if the numbers are a dead heat, the superdelegate issue may be relevant. If there's a popular cushion, that goes away, but if it's really close, it'll get messy regardless.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:42 pm UTC

Can't believe FiveThirtyEight was so far off on Michigan. Nate Silver called it the greatest polling error ever. Maybe his predictions have gotten so good, they can significantly affect the results.
lol everything matters
-Ed

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:48 pm UTC

Again, 20% to 30% of voters make up their mind on the day-of the poll. My bet is that like 20% of the Michigan voters woke up yesterday, went to Facebook, learned that Bernie was against the TransPacific Trade agreement and then voted for Bernie (or some other pet-issue that was in favor of Bernie Sanders)

You can't predict an undecided voter, and a huge number of voters remain undecided right until the hours before they vote (despite saying otherwise when asked in a poll). Polls are only maybe... 70% to 80% accurate at best.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Wed Mar 09, 2016 10:01 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:You can't predict an undecided voter

Eh, you can. Nate Silver has traditionally predicted it based off demographics and been accurate previously. This was the anomaly.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Leovan and 15 guests