• The 2016 New Hampshire Primary.
    344 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49701601]How would you propose that?[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely certain. Perhaps ban organizations with corporate donations from fielding candidates? Our founding fathers were pretty clear on this, the two party system inarguably hurts our country and stalls legislation and progress. [quote=John Adams] There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. [/quote] [quote=George Washington] The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. [/quote] [editline]s[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49700111]:thatwasfunnyright:[/QUOTE] Not [I]really[/I] sure what you're trying to say here, maybe you should use words.
Oh look, Clinton bought delegates again, super.
[QUOTE=phygon;49701749]I'm not entirely certain. Perhaps ban organizations with corporate donations from fielding candidates? Our founding fathers were pretty clear on this, the two party system inarguably hurts our country and stalls legislation and progress. [editline]s[/editline] Not [I]really[/I] sure what you're trying to say here, maybe you should use words.[/QUOTE] The founding fathers were exactly the reason why American politics is where it is today. Whereas (continental) European democracies looked towards proportional representation, the United States chose to go with majoritarian representation, which is a major contributor in politics evolving into a two-party system.
[QUOTE=phygon;49701749] Not [I]really[/I] sure what you're trying to say here, maybe you should use words.[/QUOTE] Words to show what I'm trying to say: You're delusional for thinking that.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49701989]Words to show what I'm trying to say: You're delusional for thinking that.[/QUOTE] Alright, now explain why. Your current argument amounts to "you are stupid" which is not an argument.
So is it over? Sanders lost?
[QUOTE=phygon;49702028]Alright, now explain why. Your current argument amounts to "you are stupid" which is not an argument.[/QUOTE] Explain a possible alternative. So far you got two quotes from firstly, a man who though complaining about a possible 2 party system in the US ended up helping ferment one and another quote from a man who warned that 2 party systems may be bad but offers no (especially no modern) way to go around them. And the icing on the cake is, both quotes are irrelevant appeals to authority. And also a historian's fallacy because hey, the US has been in a mostly 2 party system 90% of its lifespan and still has a healthy beating heart. That is why. Any chance you can offer an explanation to how you propose ending the two party system in the US, in a realistic manner, that doesn't rely on quotes from past people with the implication of "these guys said it's bad so it's bad" instead of making your own logical conclusions?
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;49702132]So is it over? Sanders lost?[/QUOTE] Sanders will win New Hampshire but it won't be a big achievement. Considering he couldn't 'win' Iowa, his third most-favourable state in the union (after New Hampshire and his home state of Vermont), he doesn't have very good odds at taking on every other state. A Sanders road to victory was supposed to start with winning Iowa.
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49702181]Sanders will win New Hampshire but it won't be a big achievement. Considering he couldn't 'win' Iowa, his third most-favourable state in the union (after New Hampshire and his home state of Vermont), he doesn't have very good odds at taking on every other state. A Sanders road to victory was supposed to start with winning Iowa.[/QUOTE] It isn't over until it's over.
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49702181]Sanders will win New Hampshire but it won't be a big achievement. Considering he couldn't 'win' Iowa, his third most-favourable state in the union (after New Hampshire and his home state of Vermont), he doesn't have very good odds at taking on every other state. A Sanders road to victory was supposed to start with winning Iowa.[/QUOTE] wow guys hold onto your horses We don't know how it could play, not really. A old shitty grandpa as seen by most people being able to go 50 50 with Hillary Clinton does raise some eyebrows. And the more he gets getting mentioned, the better for him, because he can prove as fuck that he's the alpha here, no corruption, 100% integrity, hell, I didn't know about that picture signed by Hillary telling him "Wow dude, great job promoting free health care!" which makes Hillary look like a total idiot. If anything at all, he's a magnet of change. Any political analyst will tell you that the popularity he gained either sticks with him, or forces other politicians to have views in line with him to gain more support. Yay for USA.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49702149]Explain a possible alternative. So far you got two quotes from firstly, a man who though complaining about a possible 2 party system in the US ended up helping ferment one and another quote from a man who warned that 2 party systems may be bad but offers no (especially no modern) way to go around them. And the icing on the cake is, both quotes are irrelevant appeals to authority. And also a historian's fallacy because hey, the US has been in a mostly 2 party system 90% of its lifespan and still has a healthy beating heart. That is why.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. I'd say that the parties fail to accurately represent the desires of the people, and are currently to blame for the absolute gridlock between the president and congress. Furthermore, it supports the extremism we see in the political spectrum with current candidates (I.E. trump) because in a two-party system, you gain voters by appealing to extremes. A much better system would be one like Sweden's, where they have many parties and it's more possible to accurately choose one that aligns with your views. This also opens up the field to more candidates, preventing the ludicrous outcome that's about to crop up (Trump vs Hillary), which leaves a lot of people in the middle with nobody to vote for that wouldn't be a thrown away vote. Personally, I'm typically socially liberal but economically I'm more conservative, so I often have no party to vote for that would actually vouch for my political interests. Also, this is anecdotal, but I know quite a few people that decide to not vote because it's between the republicans and the democrats, and since both parties are so extreme they just say "fuck it" and don't vote because they dislike both of them equally. I wasn't using those two quotes as an attempt at debate, I know that blindly appealing to the founding fathers "just because" is a fallacy. I was using them as an example of a reason why someone would have the viewpoint that I do.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49702200]It isn't over until it's over.[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://facepunch.com/image.php?u=201103&dateline=1393896891[/IMG] [B]DULCE ET DECORUM EST PRO BERNIE MORI! [/B] EDIT: Sorry, wasn't roman enough. There we go
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49702181]Sanders will win New Hampshire but it won't be a big achievement. Considering he couldn't 'win' Iowa, his third most-favourable state in the union (after New Hampshire and his home state of Vermont), he doesn't have very good odds at taking on every other state. A Sanders road to victory was supposed to start with winning Iowa.[/QUOTE] We can dream
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49701819]The founding fathers were exactly the reason why American politics is where it is today. Whereas (continental) European democracies looked towards proportional representation, the United States chose to go with majoritarian representation, which is a major contributor in politics evolving into a two-party system.[/QUOTE] You're saying this like most European democracies were formed before the US. When the US formed most of European was not all about equal representation.
If Sanders can't make a close tie again in NH, then I would call it over for him. But if he makes at the minimum, a tie, then he's still got potential left. A victory would be even better. But possibly even a 45% to 55% split would still show him to be a major force in the Democratic Party.
Just went to a [URL="http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/us-politics?LeftNav"]betting site[/URL], and the payout for Hillary is hilarious. [img]http://i.imgur.com/DXRXPjB.png[/img]
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49702181]Sanders will win New Hampshire but it won't be a big achievement. Considering he couldn't 'win' Iowa, his third most-favourable state in the union (after New Hampshire and his home state of Vermont), he doesn't have very good odds at taking on every other state. A Sanders road to victory was supposed to start with winning Iowa.[/QUOTE] last i checked it was 49.9 to 49.6, i'd say he "won" simply by placing since nobody knew who the hell he was in august
When will the first polling data come in?
any news
Polling finishes in 18hours and 15mins. So we should start seeing results soon after.
14 hours until polls close.
Wut: [media]https://twitter.com/hardball/status/696755509311967232[/media]
[QUOTE=smurfy;49704587]Wut: [media]https://twitter.com/hardball/status/696755509311967232[/media][/QUOTE] What the hell kind of rose-tinted glasses are they using if they call this a 'virtual tie'.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49702233]If Sanders can't make a close tie again in NH, then I would call it over for him. But if he makes at the minimum, a tie, then he's still got potential left. A victory would be even better. But possibly even a 45% to 55% split would still show him to be a major force in the Democratic Party.[/QUOTE] He really needs to better than a tie. New Hampshire is one of the few states he really has a grip in. If it Clinton cuts it close its really not a good sign. Its all about perception though
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;49704721]What the hell kind of rose-tinted glasses are they using if they call this a 'virtual tie'.[/QUOTE] So even if he wins a state the media will just spin it as a tie every time?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;49704814]He really needs to better than a tie. New Hampshire is one of the few states he really has a grip in. If it Clinton cuts it close its really not a good sign. Its all about perception though[/QUOTE] Definitely true, but winning New Hampshire is gonna do wonders for his momentum.
[QUOTE=smurfy;49704587]Wut: [media]https://twitter.com/hardball/status/696755509311967232[/media][/QUOTE] Shit even Clinton news network reports a huge lead, that's pretty hilarious.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;49705052]Shit even Clinton news network reports a huge lead, that's pretty hilarious.[/QUOTE] There's no denial that Sanders will win this. Clinton doesn't have a chance in New Hampshire. The question is, by what margin will Sanders win by?
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49705092]There's no denial that Sanders will win this. Clinton doesn't have a chance in New Hampshire. The question is, by what margin will Sanders win by?[/QUOTE] Won't be a landslide but it will be a sizeable gap IMO, just enough for Clinton to claim it as a loss Then it comes to Vermont where iirc people kept saying he has absolutely no chance but he's a Senator there so it's kind of his home turf as well? Maybe another close race?
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49705098]Won't be a landslide but it will be a sizeable gap IMO, just enough for Clinton to claim it as a loss Then it comes to Vermont where iirc people kept saying he has absolutely no chance but he's a Senator there so it's kind of his home turf as well? Maybe another close race?[/QUOTE] Sanders will win Vermont too. It's his most-popular state.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.