2016 Democratic Presidential Candidates

InHiding80

Gern Blansten said:

Leezestarr313 said:

I wonder about something. Not that familiar with the American system (yet), so please forgive me if this is a stupid question. So I am reading that people are registered as Republican or Democrat voters. Let's say there is a person who is a teacher and has a tradition of voting Republican. What I wonder is how people like that feel now that there are just these clowns available for election. Do people like that really in their right mind go and vote for someone like Trump or Cruz, even if their programs go completely against the mind set that someone like a teacher might have? How fixed is this whole "registering Democrat or Republican"? Can you change that? And how long does it take?

I also recently read that some people think Bill Clinton might suffer from Parkinson's disease, even though he is denying it. Would that affect a possible election of Hillary?

Yes Leezestar they most certainly vote against their own self interest.

I blame the internet. Low information voters feel like they are informed when they aren't.

Maher hit the nail on the head about that last week. Lies have become the new truth.

PJfanwillneverleave1

I don't know,
Polls favour landlines, what is wrong with that?

rgambs

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I don't know,
Polls favour landlines, what is wrong with that?

Nothing would be wrong with it if they expressed that bias, instead they masquerade as accurate data sets.

JimmyV

Anyone who paid attention in 2008 cannot be surprised to see the Clintons crying sexism in the run-up to New Hampshire. It will almost certainly win her some votes, much the same way her tears did eight years ago. Maybe the tears were genuine then and maybe they were not. This time though it is a clear political ploy, one that doesn't make her look very presidential. And it turns this independent off to the likely Democratic nominee even more.

callen

Think Hillary is smart and has the best experience of any candidates running.

I also think she would do what's right in white house and nominate Supreme Court justices that would be fair.

Is she perfect? No. Do I want Bill, no. But Sure as hell a better bet than any of the republicans.

JimmyV

The installation of Hillary Clinton as nominee of the Democratic Party continues. Despite a 20% defeat she will leave the New Hampshire with more state delegates than Bernie Sanders. This is a terrible look for the Dems.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hillary-earns-more-new-hampshire-delegates-than-sanders-after-loss/

F Me In The Brain

JimmyV said:

The installation of Hillary Clinton as nominee of the Democratic Party continues. Despite a 20% defeat she will leave the New Hampshire with more state delegates than Bernie Sanders. This is a terrible look for the Dems.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hillary-earns-more-new-hampshire-delegates-than-sanders-after-loss/

That is messed up. I wonder if the same is true for the Republicans in NH.
The electoral rules in this country are pretty strange.

Jason P

Hillary still tied Sanders in the number of delegates won in N.H because that state has super delegates, whose vote counts the same as a district. They each walked away with 15

THE GAME IS RIGGED! The power in the Democratic party will take down Sanders and we shall soon be bowing to President Trump.

callen

Jason P said:

Hillary still tied Sanders in the number of delegates won in N.H because that state has super delegates, whose vote counts the same as a district. They each walked away with 15

THE GAME IS RIGGED! The power in the Democratic party will take down Sanders and we shall soon be bowing to President Trump.

That's fked up. Thanks for info Jason.

Free

Hillary Clinton had more votes in the primary election in 2008, but Obama won because of the super delegates. The has been a part of the process since 1984.

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html

Oh no, you might be thinking, look at those delegate totals! He’s getting killed! The New Hampshire primary is meaningless! He didn’t even really win! On the Sanders Reddit page this morning, users were asking whether the whole primary process was a Sisyphean task, and if victory was impossible.


Make no mistake: That’s the point of this kind of messaging. To discourage, dismay, and dishearten, in the wake of something that should feel really positive for Sanders supporters. Reality check: The system is bigger than you, and you can’t change it, so go home.
I have no clue if Timothy McBride has any affiliation or even affection for Hillary Clinton, and he was certainly not alone in advancing this talking point. (Update: Surprise, surprise, the two are connected.) What I do know is that he tweeted these statistics out last night and again this morning, and whatever his intentions—and those like him—Clinton herself could not have written a better media script.

So what’s happening here? Are those delegate counts right?

Well, no—McBride’s math is wrong, but I’m assuming that wasn’t a malicious mistake. The actual count is 394-42.

So technically, yes, the count is close to accurate. He’s not overtly lying. But are they illustrative of some critical, insurmountable problem for Sanders? Not at all. Are they even relevant to the primary race? Barely. Certainly not now, and probably not ever. Are these messages deceptive, even subtly? Yes. Absolutely. And they’re propagated by people who are withholding the full story in the hopes that people like you and me are too stupid and complacent to find out on our own.

McBride’s sneaky tactic is to count “Superdelegates,” which is how he arrives at his imbalanced total. Accept the numbers blindly, and you might feel an impulse toward panic. My message to you: Chill. It’s a clever trick, but a silly one, and it won’t affect anything. To counter this narrative, let’s examine the political reality behind Superdelegates, and explain how they really work, Q&A style.

Free

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=03UwonUweAk

callen

Thanks Free now I'm bit more informed. Great article.

usamamasan1

Leezestarr313 said:

I wonder about something. Not that familiar with the American system (yet), so please forgive me if this is a stupid question. So I am reading that people are registered as Republican or Democrat voters. Let's say there is a person who is a teacher and has a tradition of voting Republican. What I wonder is how people like that feel now that there are just these clowns available for election. Do people like that really in their right mind go and vote for someone like Trump or Cruz, even if their programs go completely against the mind set that someone like a teacher might have? How fixed is this whole "registering Democrat or Republican"? Can you change that? And how long does it take?

Don't learn about USA from a political forum on a USA bands website.
I'm pretty sure all the information you seek that was posted was erroneous.
To answer your question, and with regard to primary's and caucuses, if you are registered (by choice) republican or democrat, you must cast your vote in said primary or caucus accordingly. You can however, designate yourself "independent" or "undecided" (unsure label but look it up or count on poorly segmented information here) and vote either way. Turns out in Iowa and New Hampshire, "undecided" tends to favor republicans end of day.
At the real end of the day, we only really vote between two people. And we cast our votes, generally as USA, with one or the other.

If you voted me in, I would Make America Great Again.

WOOT

brianlux

Thanks so much, Free for the article and the video. Great to see this stuff. Pressure on the super delegates- sounds like a plan!

JimmyV

JimmyV

https://twitter.com/AP/status/700379500312444928

JimmyV

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders won big in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton is still adding to her wide lead in the delegates who will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

Over the past week, Clinton has picked up the endorsements of 87 more party insiders known as superdelegates, according to a new Associated Press survey. Sanders added just 11 superdelegates.

If these delegates to the party's national convention continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly — and they can change their minds — Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide just to catch up. He would have to roll up big margins because every Democratic contest awards delegates in proportion to the vote, so even the loser can get some.

After the initial contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 481-55, according to the AP count. It's essentially a parallel election that throws Clinton's lopsided support from the Democratic establishment into stark relief.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0617d451fe3b403b846c4dd1847cb5f8/despite-nh-loss-dem-insiders-boost-clintons-delegate-lead

gimmesometruth27

JimmyV said:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/700379500312444928

debbie wasserman schultz is a national disgrace. she should lose her job.

Free

gimmesometruth27 said:

JimmyV said:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/700379500312444928

debbie wasserman schultz is a national disgrace. she should lose her job.

There are several petitions out there calling for her removal from her position.

PJ_Soul

JimmyV said:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders won big in New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton is still adding to her wide lead in the delegates who will decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

Over the past week, Clinton has picked up the endorsements of 87 more party insiders known as superdelegates, according to a new Associated Press survey. Sanders added just 11 superdelegates.

If these delegates to the party's national convention continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly — and they can change their minds — Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide just to catch up. He would have to roll up big margins because every Democratic contest awards delegates in proportion to the vote, so even the loser can get some.

After the initial contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 481-55, according to the AP count. It's essentially a parallel election that throws Clinton's lopsided support from the Democratic establishment into stark relief.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0617d451fe3b403b846c4dd1847cb5f8/despite-nh-loss-dem-insiders-boost-clintons-delegate-lead

Just sick. How in the hell is this legal? And why aren't mobs of people protesting in the streets? Obviously actual regular citizens have absolutely no hand in electing their nominees. Their votes are rendered utterly useless - I don't even know they would bother under this system. Either fix this, or use a different system. Canada's method of choosing party leaders seems to work just fine.