Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Ironically, will it be organized labor working with organized business against Sanders?
“Hillary Clinton supports our fight for $15 and a union,” read the SEIU fliers, which were distributed in English and Spanish. The literature also featured quotes from Clinton supporting New York’s proposal to raise wages for fast-food workers to $15 an hour.
“As president, I will work to raise the federal minimum wage back to the highest level it’s ever been — $12 an hour in today’s dollars — and support state and local efforts to go even further,” Clinton wrote last week on Medium.
SEIU fliers paint Clinton as $15 minimum wage supporter in Nevada
I just love how Berniebros have been on full damage control-mode since last night, trying to spin defeat into "tie" or victory in a way that would make Rubio blush.
Bonus points if they bring up conspiracy theories and/or advocate for violent revolution.
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.but right now I don't see how Trump isn't set for the nomination.
Actually, he's still likely to lose. The key thing to realize is that Trump hasn't gotten a majority in any state. The only reason he's been winning is because the non-Trump vote is split between so many other candidates. Once Cruz, Carson, and Kasich drop out and it becomes Trump v Rubio, Rubio's almost certain to win.
The only way Trump can win the nomination is to play divide and conquer and hope that he can rack up a big enough lead before the field consolidates.
![]()
Sanders isn't getting any superdelegates unless he manages a clear mandate in the vote too. Which so far he hasn't.
edited 21st Feb '16 10:22:50 AM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayBecause Obama outright won more states IIRC. And there is no way that the super delegates will go for Sanders, unless he starts winning by landslides. And even then, they might go for Clinton.
That's assuming that many Cruz/Carson voters don't go over to Trump. Some Kasich supporters might stay home altogether if he drops, with all the other moderates gone. And it also banks on Rubio not imploding again (not a guarantee, but it could happen).
edited 21st Feb '16 10:23:48 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.My point is that we're three states down out of 50. Literally anything can happen. It's disingenuous to discuss chances for either candidate until at least after Super Tuesday.
Especially when all we've seen so far is an undecided Democratic base. There's not yet a clear frontrunner, delegate-wise.
edited 21st Feb '16 10:25:29 AM by SolipsistOwl
Oh I agree on that front, the Democratic race is an actual race rather than a coronation. Provided that the eventual loser and their supporters fall behind the nominee, this is probably good for the party.
edited 21st Feb '16 10:37:20 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Can someone explain how exactly super delegates come into play here? Are they just party members throwing in a vote or something?
Anyway, yeah, I don't see either of them not throwing their support behind the eventual candidate. The it's what Clinton did when Obama won back in 08, and the democrats aren't exactly in the habit of tearing their nominee down once it's all decided. I highly doubt Sanders would try running third party at this point.
Superdelegates are certain officeholders - in the Democratic party governors and members of Congress - who can vote in the party convention in favour of their preferred candidates (although some are bound to specific candidates, I think). Together with delegates elected in the primaries they select the eventual candidate.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanSanders losing in Nevada is plainly not good for him, not when some bad states for him are coming around the corner.
So much of the primary, even more than the general because of the spaced-out states, is about narrative and momentum. Clinton losing NH was problematic because it allowed for two weeks of the "Clinton in trouble" narrative to reign, simply for lack of other primaries, and that helped Sanders. Now we're gonna have two in a row go for Clinton, which'll lead to bad vibes out there for Sanders before the general rout (outside of Vermont, Massachusetts, and maybe Oklahoma) on Super Tuesday, which'll make things even worse.
Anyway, yeah, I don't see either of them not throwing their support behind the eventual candidate
If Sanders gets a clear win, then they will support him. But if it's like Sanders 51% Clinton 49%, they'll probably stick with Clinton.
The whole point of superdelegates is to make sure that the party chooses a viable candidate. Which means that if there is a tie or anything that can be spun as a tie, they'll break it in favor of Clinton.
Seriously, a lot of the idiosyncrasies of our system is a result of being the first to do it. Others could look at us and decide that there was probably a more efficient way to do it.
Actually, the modern primary system was only created in 1972. Before that, nominees were chosen largely by backroom deals among the party elite.
edited 21st Feb '16 12:01:22 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayRepublicans do that. Which is why they have so many candidates, and why their vote is always so split. At least they don't have some stuffed shirts go "You know what? We know what you want more than you do, fuck you."
It's a sad world when Republicans have to be given credit for something.
@Logo P Because we're 'Mericans, goddamnit.
Also, as superdelegates are appointed by and for the party leadership, they have a clear bias against Sanders, who was less than a year ago simply caucusing with the Dems when he wasn't actively railing against them as part of a corrupt system. He may have been correct to do that, but it hasn't endeared him to the leadership by any means. If Sanders gets a simple majority and not a clear one, they may still be inclined to throw their weight behind Clinton, who plays the edition of the political game which they prefer. The party chair/Killer Game Master is doing her best to Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies him, too.
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."I am a tad worried that Bernie's supporters won't back up Clinton if she wins and/or that moderate Clinton supporters will stay at home if Sanders wins. It wasn't much of an issue in 08 because Obama and Clinton were basically the same on nearly every issue. But this time we have two distinct candidates, where supporters of one might not agree with the other; though the sheer terror that the GOP provides by running nothing but lunatics (and Kasich) might get them to grit their teeth in November.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Superdelegates are not entirely appointed by the party leadership.
Rather, certain elected officeholders (members of Congress and governors) are ex officio superdelegates. Some members of the DNC are also superdelegates, not sure how that is appointed.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanCruz will not drop out until the last day, if then. He has very strong support among evangelicals, the Tea Party, and the hard core fundamentalists/anti-government type of all stripes, unlike Rubio he's actually won a state, he outperformed Rubio in a state (New Hampshire) which actually is known for preferring moderates, and in South Carolina he finished less than 1,100 votes behind Rubio for second place.
Cruz isn't going anywhere. Carson is unimportant except that he's probably primarily siphoning votes away from Cruz, (and the fact that he was relegated to playing spoiler in a state where he was considered as strong as he could get says something) and Kasich is the last "moderate" standing, but this year's Republican primary has no real taste for moderates.
The real contenders are Cruz, Rubio, and Trump, and because Cruz has more enthusiastic support than Rubio, (who is playing the role of everyone's second choice) there is zero reason for him to step down. What's more, Cruz has his insane, fundamentalist belief in himself and his cause. It won't matter what happens in the polls, Cruz is all but incapable of backing down.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |

Rare footage of Jeb! today: