Print

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

[RedKing]

Renowned warlock Nate the Silver has a good article looking at the math around superdelegates in the Democratic race.

Superdelegates are mathematically relevant when a candidate has 41.2 percent to 58.8 percent of elected delegates. Below that range, a candidate couldn’t win a first-ballot majority even with the votes of every superdelegate; above that range, the superdelegates’ help wouldn’t be necessary to clinch the nomination.

That’s still a fairly wide range, however. In theory, for example, a candidate could lose elected delegates 58 percent to 42 percent — equivalent to losing the average state by 16 percentage points — and still win the nomination through superdelegates.

EDIT: Also, take that new Nevada poll with a block of salt. The questions are something of a push poll against Hillary. Not sure that those affected the actual result, because it would appear that the candidate choice question came before the "Did you know that Hillary is being investigated by the FBI? Does that make you more or less likely to support her?" kind of stuff. Still, makes me a bit skeevy about the validity of the results.

[smjjames]

Plus the fact that the other part which did the poll has an (R) next to it, the newspaper practically screams republican, and those questions don't look like the neutral ones you'd see in say, a Quinnipiac poll.

[Shadowlord]

http://theweek.com/speedreads/605521/ted-cruzs-campaign-pulls-ad-after-discovering-stars-softcore-porn-actress

Is he judging her? Isn't he supposed to leave that to God?

[Baffler]

http://theweek.com/speedreads/605521/ted-cruzs-campaign-pulls-ad-after-discovering-stars-softcore-porn-actress

Is he judging her? Isn't he supposed to leave that to God?

I'm going to ignore the fedorabait and just say that even if he didn't care, a lot of his base might. His position is sort of precarious right now and he doesn't really want to irritate them more than he already has, or give some kind of ammunition to his opponents who could and would have made a big fuss about it.

[smjjames]

They could have legal reasons behind the withdrawl of the ad.

Speaking of legal stuff: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-ted-cruz-canada-sue-219216. If you have the standing, then why don't you sue him? Oh wait, perhaps it's because you don't want to get caught up in a lengthy trial which could hurt you in some form or other.

It'd probably be express punted to the Supreme Court anyhow, but even then, it would take time.

Truean is the only lawyer on the forum that I know of, but I don't think they specialize in constitutional law anyway.

[misko27]

"If you heard that Bernie Sanders had professed his erotic love for Chairman Mao, how would you feel?"
"Are you familiar with accusations that Hillary Clinton is a lizard? Does learning that she has professed a taste for the flesh of formerly living creatures change your mind?"

[nenjin]

http://theweek.com/speedreads/605521/ted-cruzs-campaign-pulls-ad-after-discovering-stars-softcore-porn-actress

Is he judging her? Isn't he supposed to leave that to God?

Are you an American? If you are, you should know the religious right is all about judging people based on how they look, what they do or what they believe. Pulling an ad because it features an adult film star is exactly what someone pandering to the religious right would do.

[mainiac]

There are softcore porn stars?

[Frumple]

In a sort of conceptual, interchangeable sense.

Also, I thought that name sounded oddly familiar. Lady was also in the final episode of star trek voyager. Make of that what you will.

[Shadowlord]

If you've ever seen a movie sex scene, it's basically that. The ones with topless women. No visible genitals, simulated sex, etc.

[O.Wilde]

In 1967, 30 armed Black Panthers occupied the State Capitol in Sacramento. They were openly carrying guns, and actually entered the Senate chamber before walking out. None of the were shot.

Ok, I am sorry to bring this up again, but... gotta point something out really fast.

They may not have been shot that day, but they by no means got away with doing that.

In 1969, Fred Hampton (21) was shot 3 times while asleep. In the next room Mark Clark (17) was also killed while asleep. Four other Panthers were wounded in the raid. 90 shots were fired in the apartment, and only 1 came from a Panther, Mark, who pulled the trigger involuntarily due to being shot in the head while asleep. (He slept with a shotgun). 9 police officers and the county state's attorney were indicted by a grand jury, but the charges were dropped.

It's not like the police or FBI were exactly gentle in their dealings with Panthers. They just bided their time and then fucking assassinated them.

[Descan]

Sanders just said Yuge. Worlds are colliding.

He's been making that joke for a few weeks now, saying Yuge to mock Trump as reference.

[Bauglir]

Speaking of legal stuff: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-ted-cruz-canada-sue-219216. If you have the standing, then why don't you sue him? Oh wait, perhaps it's because you don't want to get caught up in a lengthy trial which could hurt you in some form or other.

Because Bush v Gore was among the worst* decisions the Court ever made, it actually does establish standing for Trump here. Part of Bush's case was that he had standing to sue because the issue could cost him the election (which, incidentally, is bullshit, since the case was about voter rights being interfered with once they got in the door). At least, if memory serves.

*In the sense that it was stupid, not that it necessarily had the most negative impacts.

[smjjames]

Speaking of legal stuff: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-ted-cruz-canada-sue-219216. If you have the standing, then why don't you sue him? Oh wait, perhaps it's because you don't want to get caught up in a lengthy trial which could hurt you in some form or other.

Because Bush v Gore was among the worst* decisions the Court ever made, it actually does establish standing for Trump here. Part of Bush's case was that he had standing to sue because the issue could cost him the election (which, incidentally, is bullshit, since the case was about voter rights being interfered with once they got in the door). At least, if memory serves.

*In the sense that it was stupid, not that it necessarily had the most negative impacts.

I'm not saying Trump doesn't have standing, I'm saying that he might not think it's worth getting wrapped up in a trial that could last weeks which could end up harming his campaign, even if it's only percieved harm.

IMO, the whole issue needs to have a legal discussion in court to settle it. Of course, even then, not everybody would agree with the findings.

[smjjames]

Gilmore FINALLY gives up (the race, not the ghost) : http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/jim-gilmore-republican-2016/index.html Though I guess you could say his campaign gave up the ghost.