Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Sure, ruminating on the causes of racism is all fine and dandy,

I would say that his habit of relating everything back to the same idea is a strategic misstep beyond just racial issues.  It was extremely helpful when he was breaking away from the pack but eventually the goal is to transition.  Whoever his chief strategist is has really dropped the ball here.

That piece summarizes everything I hate about the Clinton campaign so much better than I ever could have.

Yup.

[RedKing]

So in other words, because he's saying "No, black people, it's not just you. They'd shit on you if you were brown, green, orange, whatever. It's about socio-economic status."

I can get why they don't appreciate that. It disrupts a narrative that has been many decades in the running. And FWIW, I think it's a mix of the two. Even rich black people don't get the full respect that rich white people do. The origins of it definitely lie in antebellum power dynamics. But I think the racism is perpetutated thanks to income equality.

[mainiac]

I dont think it's so much a bad message as he is holding himself back with only one message.  He has a high profile enough platform that he can go for more complicated and diverse messages.  He mostly just bangs the same drum.  It's a good drum but he has more options.

I do believe that nobody called any politician racist during this conversation.

[RedKing]

That's a fair cop. I think to some extent it's because he knows that if the conversation goes that route, some people (on both sides) immediately shut down and tune out.

[misko27]

It is also internally consistent with Sanders views, but it shows that there is some daylight between Sanders and his base (fortunately it's not something they consider, or if it is, they consider the difference small and unimportant), and illustrates the Sanders Minority problem. It's interesting because its actually a point where we see the difference between "socialist" and "liberal", I think.

The thing I think is it is an example of him being honest and not a politician, but that means he is taking a position that is at odds with people he needs to win.

[RedKing]

Good bit from Nate Silver comparing Trump to Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, both of whom got around Trump's numbers in Iowa (23% for Buchanan in 1996, 21% for Paul in 2012).

How did those candidates fare in New Hampshire?

1996 -- Buchanan 27.25% (Winner)
2012 -- Paul 22.89% (2nd place)
 
So even a strong showing or an outright win in New Hampshire may not tell us anything demonstrative about Trump's trajectory. Ron Paul stayed in the race until May, Buchanan stayed in all the way to the convention.

[mainiac]

Although it should be noted that ron paul lost to romney who won new hampshire and buchanan lost to bob dole who won iowa.  While rubio outperformed expectations in iowa he does need to start winning states at some point.  I'm surprised that Cruz shot up so little and Rubio shot up so much on predictwise.  I wouldn't have expected him to be a 50-50 chance when he still hasn't polled above 15% in New Hampshire or Nevada.  Especially when I look at CNN and Fox and dont see Rubios name in the headlines.

[smjjames]

I imagine it's so superdeligates can "cancel out" a split popular vote with the "establishment" vote.

I wonder why the republicans don't have that thing? Though they'd probably scatter to various establishment candidates rather than coalesce around a single one.

Probably because it goes against the whole "one man one vote" thingy. I know that the United states was built to not have that be the case, but for the primaries at least, only people who actually care about politics are going to vote, so having people like that would just screw with everything.

I don't even understand why thay don't all do the whole primary directly and all at once. (Thouh I imagine it's probably some obsolete throwback to earlier days)

And if they did the whole general election thing like right now and it becomes a three way split in the republican side with nobody getting enough, then what happens?

The primaries are supposed to be the winnowing period.

I don't know how other countries that use a presidential system do it.

[Shadowlord]

They pick straws. Whoever draws the short straw gets yelled at by the Congress-equivalent and half the country until they leave office - maybe longer! See Tony Blair for example.

[mainiac]

I don't know how other countries that use a presidential system do it.

Generally the first and second place run in the general.  So if yesterdays presidential results had been for the governors race, Cruz and Trump would be running for the governors mansion against each other while Rubio, Clinton and Sanders watched from the sidelines.  Or if it was a partisan primary, Cruz and Clinton would run.  Of course voters would have voted differently if the rules were different.  The "others" candidates would have dropped out before the election.

[Shadowlord]

Didn't Clinton and Sanders do better than Cruz and Trump? :V

[RedKing]

Didn't Clinton and Sanders do better than Cruz and Trump? :V

Percentage-wise, yes. But they were fighting over basically a two-person pie, whereas the Republicans were fighting over a dozen doughnuts (emphasis on the nuts).

I'm not sure if the Dems tracked raw vote count, to say if Clinton/Sanders got more *votes* than Cruz or Trump. Especially since caucusing isn't exactly the same as voting.

[mainiac]

It seems I was wrong, the democratic turnout was actually about even with republican.  So the democratic candidates would be number 1 and 2 in a runoff.

[smjjames]

You know, what happens to delegates that are for a candidate who dropped out? I'm just wondering because on http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/iowa Kasich, Fiorina, Bush, and Paul got one delegate each, so, what happens with those delegates when the candidate drops out? Do they stay that way until the convention or are they free to choose someone else or I guess they could be traded during the convention or something. Theres also an unallocated delegate for some reason, maybe still figuring out the numbers somewhere.

[RedKing]

IIRC, the delegates for a candidates who's dropped out are not bound to any particular candidate. Typically, if a candidate endorses one of the remaining folks, their delegates will go for that endorsee. But it's not codified, I believe.

What will be interesting is to see *who* the folks endorse as they drop.
Would expect Bush, Christie and Kasich to endorse Rubio at this point.
Carson to endorse Cruz (or maybe Trump?).
Fiorina...who knows? Probably Rubio.
Huckabee was rumored to be set to endorse Trump prior to his pulling out. He denied it, but that denial was based on his still being a candidate.
Paul...fuck, he'll probably endorse his dad or some shit. Or tell his people to go Libertarian. I have a hard time seeing him endorse any of the rest of the field.
Santorum...probably Cruz, though Santorum would actually have to have a delegate for that to matter worth a damn.

The real question of course, is who will Jim Gilmore endorse? Will Gilmore be the kingmaker? (and wouldn't it be fucking awesome if it came to down to a total clusterfuck of a brokered convention, and Jim Gilmore actually DID become the kingmaker??)