Presidential election, 2016

[Anthony '58]

But what if Hillary is indicted between now and July 25th, causing the superdelegates to freak out and switch to Sanders?

That is why Hillary hasn't won a thing yet.

[playwrite]

(06-08-2016, 07:58 AM)Anthony Wrote: But what if Hillary is indicted between now and July 25th, causing the superdelegates to freak out and switch to Sanders?

That is why Hillary hasn't won a thing yet.

Or, maybe the Mayan Calendar will come to an end and we will all die!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, wait, that already happened... and unfortunately, we're all still here.  Rats!

Come on indictment!  Save us!  Save us from the  Brown hordes and that Bxtch!..... oops, I mean, ah, zombies!

[pbrower2a]

(06-08-2016, 07:58 AM)Anthony Wrote: But what if Hillary is indicted between now and July 25th, causing the superdelegates to freak out and switch to Sanders?

That is why Hillary hasn't won a thing yet.

1. Hillary Clinton could step down and leave the Presidential race to the VP nominee (who will likely have the endorsement of Bernie Sanders, anyway).

2. Donald Trump so offends so many people that the Libertarian ticket of Johnson and Weld could beat him. What political baggage do Johnson and Weld have? Two former Republicans recognized for moderation.

Think carefully. The Establishment wings of both main Parties have been shaken badly this year, the Republican Establishment shaking even earlier. This is a 4T, a Crisis Era. Just think of what this statement can do if Gary Johnson utters it.

"All in all, Barack Obama is a fine President, and whoever follows him might as well share and honor his virtues and competence. I hope to be that good".

So what has Donald Trump won? The contempt of intelligent people with conscience? That has usually been enough to ensure defeat. More people will come to the conclusion that Donald Trump will at best be an ineffective President. with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress keeping him from doing anything new and catastrophic. Then maybe we get a really-good President whom the political schemers get no chance to waste as they wasted Barack Obama.

[Eric the Green]

Hillary Clinton now has over 2160 pledged delegates, and 2026 is a majority of pledged delegates. But this is not enough to make Bernie say that his campaign has berned to ashes yet. He figures that unless Hillary gets 2383 pledged delegates, so that these pledged delegates are a full majority of ALL the delegates, then she hasn't sown it up yet; that she will still need superdelegates to win, and so the convention will be contested.

So far my projections are working out again, except where Hillary is doing better than projected. So Bernie will have no chance to convince any superdelegates to support him, because he does not have a majority of pledged delegates or voters behind him. The superdelegates will have no reason to desert Hillary, and Bernie supporters who blame superdelegates for his loss have no case.

They need to get behind Hillary if they live in swing states and care about their country. Drop the baloney about "integrity" and "trust" issues and that she "cheats" and is "the Establishment." No, Trump is the crony capitalist in this election, not Hillary. She may not be pure as the driven snow, but anyone who thinks we can get pure as the driven snow elected in the United States of America, doesn't know what country they live in.

[Eric the Green]

The 11 states that will determine the 2016 election
Trump vs. Clinton may be an unusual matchup, but their coming battle will be fought on familiar terrain.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/do...z4B2AZ4Tsq
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Eric the Green]

wikipedia's count now in the Democratic primary race:
Hillary Clinton 2203 pledged delegates, Sanders 1824.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of...ries,_2016

How my earlier projections fared in the week's elections;
Virgin Islands: C (Clinton) 7, S (Sanders) 0. Projected C 4, S 3
Puerto Rico: C 36, S 24. Projected C 35, S 25
California: C 269, S 206. Projected C 255, S 220
Montana: C 10, S 11. Projected C 4, S 17
New Jersey: C 79, S 47. Projected C 70, S 56
New Mexico: C 18, S 16. Projected C 17, S 17
North Dakota: C 5, S 13. Projected C 3, S 15
South Dakota: C 10, S 10. Projected C 5, S 15.

The tide in Democratic primaries leaned toward Hillary this week, as she became the presumptive nominee. I hope that means she will gain in national polls in the weeks ahead. That isn't happening yet. PA is tied in the latest one.

[Eric the Green]

(06-06-2016, 09:21 PM)Odin Wrote: Donald Trump's Hispanic voter 'doomsday'

I think the Democrats should replay Trump's announcement over and over again. "They're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some I assume are good people...."
https://youtu.be/bbyoUb3mp1E

And his critique of the judge in his Trump University case. "He's prejudiced against me; he's a Mexican"

Rub it in. That should trump Trump.

The election now is not confined to the relatively few members of the stupid party that vote in primaries. So his teflon will rust.

[Eric the Green]

If Trump does not win Pennsylvania, I think he loses. He has to crack a hole in the blue wall, and that's the only crack that can win it for him. If he loses PA, then he loses VA, which is trending more blue. He loses NH for the same reason. He loses WI and the other industrial-midwestern blue wall states for the same reason. He loses Nevada for the same reason and because of the hispanic vote. If he still wins North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Florida, and the entire red wall, but loses PA, then he loses.

[playwrite]

(06-09-2016, 09:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Trump does not win Pennsylvania, I think he loses. He has to crack a hole in the blue wall, and that's the only crack that can win it for him. If he loses PA, then he loses VA, which is trending more blue. He loses NH for the same reason. He loses WI and the other industrial-midwestern blue wall states for the same reason. He loses Nevada for the same reason and because of the hispanic vote. If he still wins North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Florida, and the entire red wall, but loses PA, then he loses.

I think you're right about PA.

PPP has some very good and insightful analysis -

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/...close.html

Quote:Pennsylvania Close; Sanders Supporter Unity Would Make It Not Close

PPP's new Pennsylvania poll finds a close race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the state, although both a generic Democratic candidate and Bernie Sanders have more substantial leads that bode well for Clinton's chances if she can get the party unified around her in the weeks ahead.


Clinton has 41% to 40% for Trump, with Gary Johnson at 6% and Jill Stein at 3%. In a head to head match up, Clinton and Trump tie at 44%. Similarly to what we found on the Florida poll we released yesterday, Republicans are more unified around Trump (79/8) than Democrats are around Clinton (75/15). That dynamic is what's making the state competitive.
Democrats lead a generic ballot question for President 45/41, which is pretty similar to Barack Obama's margin of victory in the state in 2012. Bernie Sanders has a substantial advantage over Trump, 45/36, with Johnson at 5% and Stein at 1%. In a head to head contest Sanders leads Trump 51/39.
 
Pennsylvania is a great microcosm of the issue Clinton faces in winning over Sanders fans. Among people who support Sanders in a head to head match up with Trump, only 72% support Clinton in the general. 10% would go to Trump, 6% to Stein, 4% to Johnson, and 9% are undecided. If Clinton could win over even just half of those Sanders supporting hold outs her lead over Trump would go from a tenuous 41-40 to a comfortable 47-40. Whether it's possible for her to do that time will tell.

This is why the Bernie ass-kissing is now on steroids.  It's why any Progressive, even in states behind the Blue Wall, should be encouraging the Bern's to move to the Hillary train... or start writing their apology to their kids and grandkids for enabling a President Trump, and a SCOTUS at least as scary but much more long lasting.

[Bronco80]

I'm optimistic about the Blue Wall concept, but only cautiously so.  10-15 years ago I never would have thought of Virginia as a swing state.  Sometimes a weird shift or two happens that we don't foresee.

[pbrower2a]

Strange things are always possible. West Virginia used to be reliably Democratic, going for Republican nominees for President only in electoral blowouts as in 1956, 1972 and 1984. Then it surprised about everyone by going for George W. Bush in 2000 and never going back to any Democratic nominee.

What happened in West Virginia? The once-powerful United Mine Workers was able to get the coal miners organized. In view of the danger of coal mining it is easy to imagine the bonds that develop between coal miners, even to the extent that coal miners typically married the daughters of coal miners. Getting so tightly-knit people to find common cause in politics is fairly easy. But eventually the coal seams were mined out, and miners lost their jobs. Meanwhile the Democrats who had won state and local offices had failed to invest in education, highways, and public health, and when things got bad the Democrats owned the problems. Republicans kissed up to the coal barons, offered little to anyone else except support for 'traditional values', and got elected.

With Virginia it has been people moving into Virginia from Democratic-leaning states like New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They bring their Democratic-leaning politics with them.... often because they are government employees more concerned with the government paying their salaries than with the government extracting taxes from them.

New Mexico was a fairly conservative state when the ranching interests dominated politics (which is still true of the part of eastern New Mexico adjacent to the Texas state line).  But the Hispanic electorate grew, and it remained Democratic. New Mexico has gone from being a swing state about ten years ago (Gore 2000, Dubya in 2004) to being one of the states most likely to vote Democratic for President.

So what lean-D states seem to be drifting R? It's hard to pick one. Look for a state that hasn't gone Republican since at least 1988 that Hillary Clinton campaigns heavy and late, and there is the answer to that question. Which traditionally R states might go D this time? Arizona looks to be a possibility because Donald Trump has so insulted Mexican-Americans  and anyone who has a connection (like an in-law) that he could lose a huge group of voters. Also, Arizona is getting lots of D-leaning Californians fleeing the high costs of real estate. Those recent Californians are likely to bring their political patterns with them. Colorado was like that.

Want a wild projection? Kansas. The Republican Party has dominated Kansas politics since at least L. Frank Baum wrote a story about Dorothy going for a ride in a tornado and ending up in Oz. The Kansas GOP is in two factions, one ultra-conservative and one moderate. Should those factions rift, the tiny Democratic Party might be in an excellent position to pick up a dissatisfied faction in the political equivalent of a tornado. Who knows when that might happen?

[playwrite]

OMG, is any one else watching Elizabeth Warren tearing the GOP and the Orange Yam a new place to poop out of!

My God, Clinton's got to pick this awesome woman as her VP. Imagine whoever Trump picks going up against this woman in the VP debates. Can we say mega can of WhoopAss?

[MillsT_98]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...e-20160609

As much as I admire Sanders' perseverance and generally support his political views, I would recommend Democrats to unite under Hillary, now that she has the Democratic nomination. It concerns me that some Sanders supporters would still rather vote for Trump than see Hillary as their nominee. Of this divide would only break the Democratic party, but what's gonna happen to them? Will they become a centrist neo-liberal party under Hillary, or will the Democrats be driven to the left because of Sanders? I believe that either could happen, but for the Democrats to have the best chance in 2016, they should all vote for Hillary rather than Trump.

[Bronco80]

(06-09-2016, 06:36 PM)playwrite Wrote: OMG, is any one else watching Elizabeth Warren tearing the GOP and the Orange Yam a new place to poop out of!

My God, Clinton's got to pick this awesome woman as her VP.  Imagine whoever Trump picks going up against this woman in the VP debates.  Can we say mega can of WhoopAss?

Warren's far too valuable in the Senate, especially with a GOP governor in MA and the Dems having a poor track record of running candidates like Martha Coakley over and over.  Clinton needs to resist gutting power in the Senate to win a election she's likely to be favored in anyway.

[playwrite]

After yesterday, Trump is making a run for it!

[playwrite]

(06-09-2016, 08:16 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...e-20160609

As much as I admire Sanders' perseverance and generally support his political views, I would recommend Democrats to unite under Hillary, now that she has the Democratic nomination. It concerns me that some Sanders supporters would still rather vote for Trump than see Hillary as their nominee. Of this divide would only break the Democratic party, but what's gonna happen to them? Will they become a centrist neo-liberal party under Hillary, or will the Democrats be driven to the left because of Sanders? I believe that either could happen, but for the Democrats to have the best chance in 2016, they should all vote for Hillary rather than Trump.

I've seen someone summing it up pretty well: 

A Bernie voter deciding to vote Trump is like -

finding that the store has run out of beer 

so you decide to drink bleach instead.

[playwrite]

This says it all -
(note - he does start off using the F word)





I'd like to think this guy is a relative of Rags.  

[Eric the Green]

Jimmy Kimmel has fun with Hillary and what will Bill be if she wins.





Jimmy and Hillary talk to some kids; always fun!
https://youtu.be/db94fvXK2ww

Jayden sounds like a budding Trumpster!

[pbrower2a]

(06-14-2016, 04:01 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: It's official - the SVR (nee KGB) are interfering in this year's Presidential Election. This makes Watergate look like child's play since it is a major international incident:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...SKCN0Z0205

"Hackers believed to be working for the Russian government broke into the Democratic National Committee's computer network, spied on internal communications and accessed research on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the committee and security experts said on Tuesday."

This also bolsters suspicions that Trump is a Manchurian Candidate at the beckon call of The Kremlin.

Earlier post deleted so that I could add further relevant material.

The President in Seven Days in May has an uncanny resemblance to Adlai Stevenson (I forget which digit).

The upper echelons of the Armed Forces are not going to commit war crimes. Not that anyone wants to think a coup possible, a military coup is the definitive impeachment. No, you are not going to start a war for your glory and the corrupt gain of your cronies. The military would go through the line of succession to find someone willing to adhere to the Constitution who is eligible for the Presidency. The pretext for the removal of Donald Trump would be disability -- that anyone who commanded war crimes would have to be insane or senile, and thus acting un-Constitutionally.

There would not be military government. Whoever would act as President would not face military interference.

War crimes are literal "high crimes and misdemeanors" suitable for impeachment. They have never been named in any bill of impeachment.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-22-2016, 11:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The upper echelons of the Armed Forces are not going to commit war crimes. Not that anyone wants to think a coup possible, a military coup is the definitive impeachment. No, you are not going to start a war for your glory and the corrupt gain of your cronies. The military would go through the line of succession to find someone willing to adhere to the Constitution who is eligible for the Presidency. The pretext for the removal of Donald Trump would be disability -- that anyone who commanded war crimes would have to be insane or senile, and thus acting un-Constitutionally.

There would not be military government. Whoever would act as President would not face military interference.

War crimes are literal "high crimes and misdemeanors" suitable for impeachment. They have never been named in any bill of impeachment.

I'd think the military's role would be to refuse to follow illegal orders then to notify Congress so Congress could consider impeachment.  Use of force would in theory not be necessary or appropriate.  Of course, refusing to follow orders, even of questionable legality, is a risky career move.