[QUOTE=Atlascore;49698792]If Trump and Sanders went 3rd party it'd be a pretty crazy election, the vote would probably be split something like 25/25/25/25, it'd be interesting to see who comes out on top. (Hopefully not Hillary)[/QUOTE]
It'd be interesting if Trump and Sanders managed to nab enough states to ensure that neither the GOP or Clinton would get the 270 required to win. It'd really fuck everything up and demonstrate just how fucked up the EC is. That is if Sanders decided to run third party which he wouldn't.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49698729]What??
The Republican party is [I][B]conservative[/B][/I], this mythical candidate you're talking about that is a Republican but [I]not[/I] a conservative literally does not exist, your argument is puzzling.[/quote]
As I had said in the parenthetical directly after the analogy I made, I said that there are no non-conservative republican candidates. The point is that the RNC (who decides the primary winner) would rather have someone loyal to the party than someone loyal to the party's principles. The point of a political party is to get its candidates elected, and nothing more.
[quote]Again, I suggest you go research this stuff, the Republicans definitely do hate Cruz more than Trump, Cruz has very few supporters in Congress and the GOP (the organization, not voters), he's so vilified that a lot of Republicans are denouncing him while ignoring Trump.[/quote]
Well, Ted Cruz has [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Ted_Cruz]quite a few endorsements[/url] from current and former legislators, most of which are/were congressmen (as well as some celebrities); he's sort of the representative for the tea party movement, which is a powerful force in congress.
I personally believe that people have vilified Cruz and Rubio but not Trump (though it's not accurate to say that Trump has been ignored), is because they don't want to give legitimacy to Trump's campaign since he's largely an outsider to the party.
[quote]It's not even about who is more "dangerous", a lot of Republicans just straight up hate Cruz as a person.[/quote]
Yeah, republican kind of hate each other right now; that's the deal with the republican party.
[quote]One final thing, when Cruz drops out you can expect a lot of that hate to be shifted towards Trump.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if Trump can get any more hate from non-supporters.
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49698792]If Trump and Sanders went 3rd party it'd be a pretty crazy election, the vote would probably be split something like 25/25/25/25, it'd be interesting to see who comes out on top. (Hopefully not Hillary)[/QUOTE]
I can't see 3rd party candidates splitting the vote evenly with major parties. I think there are too many people loyal to their own party than there are loyal to their candidates. I can see it being more like 10, 40, 40, 10, with a margin of +-10%
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Durandal;49698807]It'd be interesting if Trump and Sanders managed to nab enough states to ensure that neither the GOP or Clinton would get the 270 required to win. It'd really fuck everything up and demonstrate just how fucked up the EC is. That is if Sanders decided to run third party which he wouldn't.[/QUOTE]
I don't really think so. By the constitution, congress would elect the winner from the top 3 candidates, which would result (in our current congress) in whoever the frontrunner republican is. It happened before with Andrew Jackson, where he was denied the election because of an alleged brokered deal between Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams (where Clay became secretary of state; arguably the 2nd most power position in America)
Sanders needs seventy something percent to really get a lead on delegate count, I hope the voter turnout is high
After Iowa, including superdelegates, how many delegates does each of the top 3 candidates have of both parties? Is there any exact number on who is technically winning?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49699117]After Iowa, including superdelegates, how many delegates does each of the top 3 candidates have of both parties? Is there any exact number on who is technically winning?[/QUOTE]
I think clinton has 22 and sanders has 21
[QUOTE=cody8295;49699223]I think clinton has 22 and sanders has 21[/QUOTE]
That's just the normal delegates unfortunately.... The super-deluxe-supreme-elite-gold-platinum delegates went nearly all clinton.
[IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/sgmh5i.jpg[/IMG]
It's so strange how NH and Iowa have become such major points in American politics when both are neither representative of America nor an accurate bellweather for electoral success at least for Democrats.
Personally South Carolina is more important considering the diversity of the Democratic electorate. And for Sanders he's down by almost 30 points there. A lose in SC would probably mean a loss in most of the states voting literally 3 days later on Super Tuesday. I don't think a crushing defeat on Super Tuesday will kills Sanders campaign but it will hurt his narrative.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pekSzgR.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Srillo;49699276]It's so strange how NH and Iowa have become such major points in American politics when both are neither representative of America nor an accurate bellweather for electoral success at least for Democrats.[/QUOTE]
Superdelegates make every state's primaries irrelevant, the parties themselves choose who they want, the American people get to pretend they got a say in the matter.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49699338]Superdelegates make every state's primaries irrelevant, the parties themselves choose who they want, the American people get to pretend they got a say in the matter.[/QUOTE]
Which is why Hillary will win the nomination very easily, sadly to say
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49699338]Superdelegates make every state's primaries irrelevant, the parties themselves choose who they want, the American people get to pretend they got a say in the matter.[/QUOTE]
Well then Sanders already lost by that standard. There's gotta be SOME way around it, surely.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49699353]Well then Sanders already lost by that standard. There's gotta be SOME way around it, surely.[/QUOTE]
He could run independent, but the only situation in which he'd do that would be if Trump did the same, thus splitting either parties' votes.
Can the super delegates change their votes? If they see so how Sanders is way more electable than Clinton, couldn't they see the benefits of switching?
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49699369]He could run independent, but the only situation in which he'd do that would be if Trump did the same, thus splitting either parties' votes.[/QUOTE]
That would be a really intriguing election, arguably the President whomever it would be could be elected with under 50% of the vote in that case.
On the other hand, it could possibly give Gary Johnson a bit more notoriety.
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49699377]Can the super delegates change their votes? If they see so how Sanders is way more electable than Clinton, couldn't they see the benefits of switching?[/QUOTE]
They can, but they won't.
It's party suicide to change your vote after pledging it to a candidate.
Especially when 99% of all the others are committed to the opposition.
This is only for super delegates, regular delegates are locked on their vote, whether they have a change of heart between primary and convention or not.
say it with me now
K A S I C H
In theory a delegate's vote is up in the air until the party convention, where they will officially "cast their vote" for the candidate (which by then is often already known who it would be), but there's party bylaws, the stigma of changing your vote after saying another thing and possibly becoming a party outcast that makes delegates stay for who they initially pledged to.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49699338]Superdelegates make every state's primaries irrelevant, the parties themselves choose who they want, the American people get to pretend they got a say in the matter.[/QUOTE]
Sanders and Clinton are competing for 4,764 delegates in this primary, 712 of those are superdelegates - just 15%. Republicans have a similar system too. So I'm not sure what you mean by the states being irrelevant they make up the lion share of the delegate count.
Also people fearmongered about SDs in 2008, where Clinton had a ton of them back then too. But it never happened and keep in mind SDs can change, they aren't locked in. There are still currently 300 or so still up for grabs.
[QUOTE=Srillo;49699445]There are still currently 300 or so still up for grabs.[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that they were all spoken for, if this is true then my previous posts were based on misinformation.
Mate Silver is the only one I fully trust in poll predictions. Has he said anything yet?
[QUOTE=Srillo;49699276]It's so strange how NH and Iowa have become such major points in American politics when both are neither representative of America nor an accurate bellweather for electoral success at least for Democrats.
Personally South Carolina is more important considering the diversity of the Democratic electorate. And for Sanders he's down by almost 30 points there. A lose in SC would probably mean a loss in most of the states voting literally 3 days later on Super Tuesday. I don't think a crushing defeat on Super Tuesday will kills Sanders campaign but it will hurt his narrative.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pekSzgR.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The problem for Sanders in SC is just getting well-known. Most people have only just started to hear of him, really right before Iowa. In their minds, they only know Hillary as the Democratic candidate.
[QUOTE=ScriptKitt3h;49699519]The problem for Sanders in SC is just getting well-known. Most people have only just started to hear of him, really right before Iowa. In their minds, they only know Hillary as the Democratic candidate.[/QUOTE]
With today's media, how is that possible?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49699734]With today's media, how is that possible?[/QUOTE]
Well it's pretty simple actually. All you have to do is say "ugh, I'm not really into politics" any time anyone approaches you with literally any information about the outside world, bury yourself into your job and Netflix for six months, and then drag your uninformed ass into the discussion when you remember your state's having a primary in less than a week.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;49699927]Well it's pretty simple actually. All you have to do is say "ugh, I'm not really into politics" any time anyone approaches you with literally any information about the outside world, bury yourself into your job and Netflix for six months, and then drag your uninformed ass into the discussion when you remember your state's having a primary in less than a week.[/QUOTE]
I can imagine there being some people like that, but not so many in one state as to "never heard of this candidate before a couple days ago".
Super Tuesday is actually looking like a pretty good turnout for Sanders.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49699253]That's just the normal delegates unfortunately.... The super-deluxe-supreme-elite-gold-platinum delegates went nearly all clinton.
[IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/sgmh5i.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Man that's fucking horseshit
We need to ban the two-party system already.
[QUOTE=phygon;49700074]Man that's fucking horseshit
We need to ban the two-party system already.[/QUOTE]
:thatwasfunnyright:
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49699353]Well then Sanders already lost by that standard. There's gotta be SOME way around it, surely.[/QUOTE]
superdelagates don't have to cast their vote until the party convention though, hillary had all of them locked up in 2008 too but obama managed to poach them from her. if sanders is able to hold out until then, they will split off from her
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49699390]That would be a really intriguing election, arguably the President whomever it would be could be elected with under 50% of the vote in that case.
On the other hand, it could possibly give Gary Johnson a bit more notoriety.
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
They can, but they won't.
It's party suicide to change your vote after pledging it to a candidate.
Especially when 99% of all the others are committed to the opposition.
This is only for super delegates, regular delegates are locked on their vote, whether they have a change of heart between primary and convention or not.[/QUOTE]
I dunno,
Surely it would be more party suicide to undemocratically go with the candidate who loses in the actual primaries as Hillary might. Especially when polling results show that Bernie is the stronger candidate.
It's like in this country, we elected a leader of the Labour party by a landslide, but a lot of the rest of the party hate him, and the ensuing infighting is tearing the party apart and hitting their electability hard
How many super delegates changed their votes when Obama shot past Hillary in 2008?
[QUOTE=phygon;49700074]Man that's fucking horseshit
We need to ban the two-party system already.[/QUOTE]
How would you propose that?
[QUOTE=phygon;49700074]Man that's fucking horseshit
We need to ban the two-party system already.[/QUOTE]
You just need a popular vote system. None of this super delegates or state by state crap. Just whomever gets the most votes overall.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49701632]then you'd have a ton of the population that would go unrepresented
candidates would just flock to high density areas to campaign and leave suburban and rural communities completely in the dark[/QUOTE]
To be fair, this already happens as some states weigh more in terms of delegates than others.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.