2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

[BEAL]

Last week with John Oliver

https://youtu.be/_S2G8jhhUHg

Samantha Bee

https://youtu.be/nTnPCF9OWHM


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

You cited Nate Silver earlier, who has been getting his ass kicked since the beginning of primary season.

Yeah, but the math I just did above has nothing really to do with his opinions. It's merely the end result from the data in those polls. Either you think people are just lying and the amount of self-identified independents in the Democratic primary has been like 5% or less or the idea of millions of non-Democrats being brought into the fold by Sanders (something reiterated over and over by the media as fact) is certain truth.

Also, Nate Silver didn't fuck up anything statistically. The polling models have been fine this primary season. It was the conjecture about why Trump would eventually fail that ended up not coming to fruition. That's not data or science driven.

[Irvine511]

Nader voters should continue to apologize to each and every one of us each and every day.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Last week with John Oliver

https://youtu.be/_S2G8jhhUHg

The answer to me seems pretty damn obvious. One person, one vote. No superdelegates, no caucuses, no voting for delegates to presumably vote for your person at the convention.

I mean, the entire idea of having delegates is just like the Electoral College. The latter is basically because of slavery and the former is because the parties used to choose the candidates themselves. Neither serves a purpose in the modern day, nor would you need SuperDelegates to really stop a Lyndon LaRouche from winning the Democratic primary or whatever.

And it would probably be even smarter to just stop the state-by-state nonsense and have a single primary day for all parties in, say, early June. The candidates have months to ramp things up and then everybody in the country can vote on major issues, local officials and the one party they decide to choose to vote within. There could then be a runoff day a few weeks later for the top two candidates or that could be avoided entirely with Instant Runoff Voting.

In a world where there's the internet and quick spread of information, I really don't think the results would have been much different if we all just voted in June. Sanders would get like 45% or a bit more and lose to Clinton while Trump would win a plurality, etc.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Nader voters should continue to apologize to each and every one of us each and every day.

Or Clinton/Gore should apologize for moving the party rightward and alienating those on the left along with the Clinton blowjobs that alienated the stupid.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by DaveC

stop fucking whining

Originally Posted by DaveC

stop fucking whining

Originally Posted by DaveC

stop fucking whining

please

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

You cited Nate Silver earlier, who has been getting his ass kicked since the beginning of primary season.

Really? What for? (genuine question)

I fucking love his site

[deep]

because he and his contributors let their bias creep into their projections and the articles they would cite and post, in 2008 he was more on the money, was credible, now just another asshat

[Axver]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Or Clinton/Gore should apologize for moving the party rightward and alienating those on the left along with the Clinton blowjobs that alienated the stupid.

I hope you enjoy voting indirectly for President Trump.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Or Clinton/Gore should apologize for moving the party rightward and alienating those on the left along with the Clinton blowjobs that alienated the stupid.

Or some of us could get over ourselves and vote like it matters. Because it does.

Minorities, women, and LGBT voters don't have the luxury of Jill Stein votes, or of inflating Sanders' ego whereby he, a soundly losing candidate, exacts petty demands lest he refuse to unite the party. Let's see if Sanders cares about defeating Trump, or if Sanders cares about Sanders. You want to splinter the left and erode Clinton support and then blame her? Was it what she was wearing? You want to mindlessly equivocate between Trump and Clinton as Jill Strin has done? Do you actually think the parties are the same? Would a President Gore have done what W did?

It only took 100,000 assholes in FL to give us the Bush nightmare.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by deep

because he and his contributors let their bias creep into their projections and the articles they would cite and post, in 2008 he was more on the money, was credible, now just another asshat

He did pretty well in 2012.

But you're smarter than him now. Congrats!

[deep]

His site was crap this year, didn't feel like going back to cite when he nailed it
I have been checking him as a good source for yrars, but this year he held back and would not followe events and when they got in front, the bias was obvious, I hope they can get back to when they were good.

[BigMacPhisto]

I'm certainly thankful every day for John Kerry losing the Presidency at least. I think both the left and Democrats benefited long-term from that and what would have been the point of a Kerry Presidency if he wasn't going to withdraw from Iraq in the first place? Bush got blamed for the economic meltdown that would have happened regardless giving everything that was in place before the 2004 election and Democrats will benefit from that and the ongoing Iraq quagmire for years to come.

And the key problem when it came to Gore/Kerry is that neither even had any real ideas of where they wanted to take the country. Gore's argument was basically "uh, more of the same" while Kerry's was "doesn't this guy suck?"...I mean, say what you will about a lot of Clinton's lip service, but at least she has some ideas to keep things drifting towards the left.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

...or of inflating Sanders' ego whereby he, a soundly losing candidate, exacts petty demands lest he refuse to unite the party. Let's see if Sanders cares about defeating Trump, or if Sanders cares about Sanders.

This is already a settled issue given the major concessions that the Democratic party just gave Sanders. He is going to have his people on the board writing the damn platform. He will fall in line and the worries around here are ultimately for nought.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Minorities, women, and LGBT voters don't have the luxury of Jill Stein votes, or of inflating Sanders' ego whereby he, a soundly losing candidate, exacts petty demands lest he refuse to unite the party. Let's see if Sanders cares about defeating Trump, or if Sanders cares about Sanders.

You're speaking for everyone as though if you're a woman, or if you're a minority, or if you're gay, you'd never dream of voting for Jill Stein.

And your statement about whether or not Sanders cares about defeating Trump... and the only other logical side is that he cares about himself... why? Why can't you accept that Sanders is trying to genuinely run on principle, and trying to move the positions of the Democratic Party to the left?

It seems like you try to villainize Bernie Sanders as much as everyone calls out Clinton or Trump for being a supposed villain. And you're also coming off as rather insecure about Clinton. Do you think painting Sanders as a selfish enemy is in any way helpful dialogue? When he launches an independent bid, sure, call him selfish. Until then, I think you're just being insecure.

[BEAL]

Guess point of the videos was that you had two public figures who lean to the left, both come out and state that while the primary process is a bit out dated, confusing, and just weird, Clinton still has the votes.

Even John said if you count the caucus votes, Clinton still has a 2.9 million vote advantage. Even if you added an additional 10k votes to Bernie for every primary, and then another 100k just for shits and giggles, he's still losing by a lot.

It's time for him to bow out. Maybe he and Clinton can work on some deal to help bridge the gap between the two and keep her more to the left (remember all candidates slide to the middle for the general)

And super delegates aren't a bad thing. Pretty sure the GOP wishes they had them


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[dazzledbylight]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it's also subtly racist. the minorities are in charge now. we want to go back to whiter times.

Yes, toot that dog whistle, Mr Drumph.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BEAL

And super delegates aren't a bad thing. Pretty sure the GOP wishes they had them

Except you entirely missed the point of Oliver arguing against them in that video. Why should someone get two votes (since super delegates can also vote in their own primaries/caucuses) and why should a few hundred people with a bias towards their own party bosses get to overturn the will of the voters? It's entirely something that just sits there to piss people off and it's only power is to one day potentially really piss them off.

The smart move to energize voters and lead to more excitement to boost things in the general election is to just give it to whichever candidate earns the most votes and that's it. It would also be in line with the Democratic party's own goal to abolish the Electoral College as evidenced in all of the blue states signing on to the compact...

There would also be no more talk of "momentum" in a given state or arbitrarily trying to earn a win in one state or another. The public could just see the overall vote count and anybody trailing could either drop out sooner since it's unlikely they would get any momentum since there's no longer any states to win or try and mobilize their base to close the gap in actual, tangible voters.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by DaveC

stop fucking whining

Originally Posted by DaveC

please

fuck this thread

[LuckyNumber7]

Dave is a little salty today.