• South Carolina Primaries: Polls close at 7PM
    244 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BananaMed;49829490]Can someone explain to a non-American, what exactly are those delegates are for? And what are Super Delegates?[/QUOTE] In the olden days when nation wide votes were impractical for nominations, political parties would hold party conventions to nominate who would be the national candidate. They did this by having each state send representatives, or delegates, to the convention. These men would discuss who would be best to represent the party in the campaign ahead and vote on who they want to be on the ticket. Fast forward a a century and a few decades and nation wide voting isn't that difficult a thing anymore. So now, there is a popular vote for each candidate and the number of state delegates to the convention is now divided based on the votes in the state. These delegates [I]must[/I] vote for the person that they represent and are called Pledged Delegates. Super delegates are unpledged. They are "big name party members", such as important senators or governors or party officials in the Democratic Party (the GOP do [U]not[/U] have super delegates) and are free to vote for whomever they wish in the nomination. They constitute 15% of the total delegate count and so don't make [I]too[/I] big of an impact in the overall convention but still are important on account of who they are, big party leaders. The goal of having superdelegates is to have the party leadership retain a certain amount of control on who gets to represent the party in the national campaign, because contrary to what it seems most people believe, political parties do not have to organize themselves democratically (ironically) and the party leadership having a measure of say in who gets on the ticket helps the party stay focused on a specific set of political platforms and prevent outliers and extremists from sweeping the nomination. Its effectiveness can be disputed and the superdelegate thing has only been around for 30 years or so, but I think a good point to note is how the Democrats have these and Clinton is retaining a lead in delegate counts (who is the party favorite) against Sanders (the party outlier) where as the GOP have no mechanism for the party to regulate itself and now you have an outlier (Trump) beating out the party favorite (Rubio and/or Cruz). [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] Hopefully this is explains it well to you. [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;49828836][t]https://i.imgur.com/Zfa5630.png[/t] Truly, his campaign is ruined, he has zero chance. At least wait until Super Tuesday to make that call.[/QUOTE] These are the states holding primaries/caucuses for the Democratic Party: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Colorado Here are how things are polling so far in said states: Alabama: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/al/alabama_democratic_presidential_primary-5791.html]Clinton with a +28 point lead[/url] Arkansas: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ar/arkansas_democratic_presidential_primary-5233.html]Clinton with a +28.5 point lead[/url] Georgia: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_democratic_presidential_primary-5623.html]Clinton with a +36 point lead[/url] Massachusetts: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_primary-3891.html]Sanders with a mere +0.6 point lead, virtual tie[/url] Minnesota: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_democratic_presidential_caucus-3585.html]Clinton with a +26 point lead[/url] Oklahoma: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ok/oklahoma_democratic_presidential_primary-5739.html]Clinton with a +9 point lead[/url] Tennessee: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tn/tennessee_democratic_presidential_primary-5768.html]Clinton with a +23 point lead[/url] [B]Texas: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_democratic_presidential_primary-4158.html]Clinton with a +26 point lead[/url][/B] Vermont: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/vt/vermont_democratic_presidential_primary-5796.html]Sanders with a +75 point lead (his home state)[/url] Virginia: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_democratic_presidential_primary-3922.html]Clinton with a +19.5 point lead[/url] Colorado: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/co/colorado_democratic_presidential_caucus-5229.html]Clinton with a +28 point lead[/url] So Clinton wins by a significant percentage in each of these states with the exception of Massachusetts and Vermont. Not only that, but majority of these states, which definitely include the two Sanders is doing well in, are really insignificant to the whole delegate count. They don't add much to the convention as a whole - with the exception of Texas, which is why I bolded it. Texas is in the top 5 delegate count for the convention (#3 iirc), the others I've posted on another page here but Clinton is winning the polls there too. Texas, the big state that matters, will fall to Clinton as well as much, if not all, of the south states. So I think it's pretty damn easy to call the election just prior to Super Tuesday. No, the polls don't represent 100% what the voting will actually be, but they're pretty damn close and Sanders supporters can keep harping about how "oh he wasn't suppose to win here or there" but it's still not fucking giving him the nomination.
Yeah, I understand, thanks for anwsering. That said, from what I understood, I'm not a fan of the superdelegate thing.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49829641]In the olden days when nation wide votes were impractical for nominations, political parties would hold party conventions to nominate who would be the national candidate. They did this by having each state send representatives, or delegates, to the convention. These men would discuss who would be best to represent the party in the campaign ahead and vote on who they want to be on the ticket. Fast forward a a century and a few decades and nation wide voting isn't that difficult a thing anymore. So now, there is a popular vote for each candidate and the number of state delegates to the convention is now divided based on the votes in the state. These delegates [I]must[/I] vote for the person that they represent and are called Pledged Delegates. Super delegates are unpledged. They are "big name party members", such as important senators or governors or party officials in the Democratic Party (the GOP do [U]not[/U] have super delegates) and are free to vote for whomever they wish in the nomination. They constitute 15% of the total delegate count and so don't make [I]too[/I] big of an impact in the overall convention but still are important on account of who they are, big party leaders. The goal of having superdelegates is to have the party leadership retain a certain amount of control on who gets to represent the party in the national campaign, because contrary to what it seems most people believe, political parties do not have to organize themselves democratically (ironically) and the party leadership having a measure of say in who gets on the ticket helps the party stay focused on a specific set of political platforms and prevent outliers and extremists from sweeping the nomination. Its effectiveness can be disputed and the superdelegate thing has only been around for 30 years or so, but I think a good point to note is how the Democrats have these and Clinton is retaining a lead in delegate counts (who is the party favorite) against Sanders (the party outlier) where as the GOP have no mechanism for the party to regulate itself and now you have an outlier (Trump) beating out the party favorite (Rubio and/or Cruz). [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] Hopefully this is explains it well to you. [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] These are the states holding primaries/caucuses for the Democratic Party: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Colorado Here are how things are polling so far in said states: Alabama: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/al/alabama_democratic_presidential_primary-5791.html]Clinton with a +28 point lead[/url] Arkansas: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ar/arkansas_democratic_presidential_primary-5233.html]Clinton with a +28.5 point lead[/url] Georgia: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_democratic_presidential_primary-5623.html]Clinton with a +36 point lead[/url] Massachusetts: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_primary-3891.html]Sanders with a mere +0.6 point lead, virtual tie[/url] Minnesota: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_democratic_presidential_caucus-3585.html]Clinton with a +26 point lead[/url] Oklahoma: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ok/oklahoma_democratic_presidential_primary-5739.html]Clinton with a +9 point lead[/url] Tennessee: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tn/tennessee_democratic_presidential_primary-5768.html]Clinton with a +23 point lead[/url] [B]Texas: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_democratic_presidential_primary-4158.html]Clinton with a +26 point lead[/url][/B] Vermont: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/vt/vermont_democratic_presidential_primary-5796.html]Sanders with a +75 point lead (his home state)[/url] Virginia: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_democratic_presidential_primary-3922.html]Clinton with a +19.5 point lead[/url] Colorado: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/co/colorado_democratic_presidential_caucus-5229.html]Clinton with a +28 point lead[/url] So Clinton wins by a significant percentage in each of these states with the exception of Massachusetts and Vermont. Not only that, but majority of these states, which definitely include the two Sanders is doing well in, are really insignificant to the whole delegate count. They don't add much to the convention as a whole - with the exception of Texas, which is why I bolded it. Texas is in the top 5 delegate count for the convention (#3 iirc), the others I've posted on another page here but Clinton is winning the polls there too. Texas, the big state that matters, will fall to Clinton as well as much, if not all, of the south states. So I think it's pretty damn easy to call the election just prior to Super Tuesday. No, the polls don't represent 100% what the voting will actually be, but they're pretty damn close and Sanders supporters can keep harping about how "oh he wasn't suppose to win here or there" but it's still not fucking giving him the nomination.[/QUOTE] That's definitely true but you can't deny the southern states especially Texas would prefer Clinton over Bernie any day because they're far more red than blue, which means the Democratic nomination in those states would shift further to the right. When we see the more liberal Western States, or just States like new York, that's where well see Sanders victories start to really pile up. 9 lost States is bad, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter much, especially of Bernie plays the long game.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49829695]That's definitely true but you can't deny the southern states especially Texas would prefer Clinton over Bernie any day because they're far more red than blue, which means the Democratic nomination in those states would shift further to the right. When we see the more liberal Western States, or just States like new York, that's where well see Sanders victories start to really pile up. 9 lost States is bad, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter much, especially of Bernie plays the long game.[/QUOTE] Why those states will vote for Clinton over Sanders is really irrelevant, the votes will be cast and she'll get the delegates. Also, what the fuck is the "long game" if he's losing the vast majority of Super Tuesday? This is another damn case of "well he wasn't suppose to win [I]those[/I] states" which I've yet to see anyone contest to why this strategy will give him the nomination. Here's the top five states with the most delegates. New York is among them, too, and Clinton (who was the senator from NY for a while) is winning there: [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49826764]The top 5 states with the most delegates to win are 1. California 2. New York 3. Texas 4. Florida 5. Pennsylvania [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016[/url] Poll in California: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html]Clinton has the lead[/url] Poll in New York: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ny/new_york_democratic_presidential_primary-4221.html]Clinton has the lead[/url] Poll in Texas: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_democratic_presidential_primary-4158.html]Clinton has a lead[/url] Poll in Florida: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_democratic_presidential_primary-3556.html]Clinton has another lead[/url] Poll in Pennsylvania: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html]Clinton has ANOTHER lead[/url] So that's the top 5 states with the most delegates, arguable the only ones that really matter and Clinton has a substantial lead in the polls for each and every one of them.[/QUOTE] [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] Across the damn board, Sanders is behind Clinton 20 to 30 points in each state save for a mere handful whose total delegate count is insignificant to the convention compared to all the others piled up.
At least someone understands the futility of it all, I can almost appreciate the undying optimism / denial from the rest of you all. But Sanders is finished.
[QUOTE=BananaMed;49829682]Yeah, I understand, thanks for anwsering. That said, from what I understood, I'm not a fan of the superdelegate thing.[/QUOTE] Personally I feel it's a "it looks good on paper but not in action" type of mechanism. At face value, it makes sense for a party to want to keep itself centered on a specific platform and hold to it, but on the other hand, it's undemocratic to ignore what the voters want. However, political parties, as organizations, are not required by any measure to adhere to the voters at all. It's perfectly legal for the parties to write in their bylaws that the party chairman has single ability to nominate the next candidate, skipping the whole primary/caucus/convention thing altogether. [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wystan;49829723]At least someone understands the futility of it all, I can almost appreciate the undying optimism / denial from the rest of you all. But Sanders is finished.[/QUOTE] It's more from experience than seeing the stats. Sanders's campaign is, roughly, going down the same path as my candidate in 2008, Ron Paul, did. Big hope, even coming in measurably well in Iowa and NH but bombing out in SC and losing nationwide. I fucking was one of those "oh he wasn't suppose to win [I]that[/I] state" guys for Ron Paul, so I'm fully aware of how bad it is to take that defense in a candidate losing. It also probably helps that I'm supporting a candidate I know for a fact will not win the presidency, so I have some sympathy for Sanders voters but honestly they have to look at the long term aspects of this campaign, beyond November's election.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49829732]Personally I feel it's a "it looks good on paper but not in action" type of mechanism. At face value, it makes sense for a party to want to keep itself centered on a specific platform and hold to it, but on the other hand, it's undemocratic to ignore what the voters want. However, political parties, as organizations, are not required by any measure to adhere to the voters at all. It's perfectly legal for the parties to write in their bylaws that the party chairman has single ability to nominate the next candidate, skipping the whole primary/caucus/convention thing altogether. [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] It's more from experience than seeing the stats. Sanders's campaign is, roughly, going down the same path as my candidate in 2008, Ron Paul, did. Big hope, even coming in measurably well in Iowa and NH but bombing out in SC and losing nationwide. I fucking was one of those "oh he wasn't suppose to win [I]that[/I] state" guys for Ron Paul, so I'm fully aware of how bad it is to take that defense in a candidate losing. It also probably helps that I'm supporting a candidate I know for a fact will not win the presidency, so I have some sympathy for Sanders voters but honestly they have to look at the long term aspects of this campaign, beyond November's election.[/QUOTE] 3/5 of those states have insufficient polling compared to places like Texas. It either doesn't come to you with those wins that he'll still get [i] some [/I] delegates from most of those states on super tuesday. It'll still be a split. Won't be as close but he still has a chance. Let's not compare Bernie to Ron Paul, who got less than 14% of the vote in pretty much all the primaries. This is a way closer game than the Republican primaries in 2008. It's bad to have unfounded hope, like you experienced in 2008, but worse to not have any when it's still possible he can win. I'm voting for him when it comes to California, and still have hope he'll do well. Beyond that it's impossible to say what the landscape looks like until after super Tuesday and the foregoing caucuses after.
Can someone explain to a non-US why on earth black voters would go for Hilary over someone who's spent their life protesting against inequality?
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49829837]3/5 of those states have insufficient polling compared to places like Texas. It either doesn't come to you with those wins that he'll still get [i] some [/I] delegates from most of those states on super tuesday. It'll still be a split. Won't be as close but he still has a chance. Let's not compare Bernie to Ron Paul, who got less than 14% of the vote in pretty much all the primaries. This is a way closer game than the Republican primaries in 2008. It's bad to have unfounded hope, like you experienced in 2008, but worse to not have any when it's still possible he can win. I'm voting for him when it comes to California, and still have hope he'll do well. Beyond that it's impossible to say what the landscape looks like until after super Tuesday and the foregoing caucuses after.[/QUOTE] I wasn't comparing Sanders's campaign to Paul's. I was comparing Sanders supporters to Paul supporters, myself included. Hope is fine, but realistically it's a Clinton victory. By no means am I suggesting Sanders supporters [I]not[/I] vote for him or give up [I]at all[/I]. But there's a difference between having hope and being blindingly optimistic that victory is very possible. I do believe Sanders has [I]a[/I] chance, but I see it as extremely slim and near impossible. That being said, If Clinton wins 100 delegates and Sanders wins 99, Clinton still wins. This is a winner-take-all nomination. Second place, no matter how close, doesn't get shit. [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Occlusion;49829847]Can someone explain to a non-US why on earth black voters would go for Hilary over someone who's spent their life protesting against inequality?[/QUOTE] The Clintons are originally from Arkansas, so they're from the south. Bill "grew up poor" and so before Obama was called "the first black president". She's also a minority, being a woman. Not necessarily the same as being black, but she's still not a white male.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49829641]Massachusetts: [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_primary-3891.html]Sanders with a mere +0.6 point lead, virtual tie[/url][/QUOTE] This is the worst part - Massachusetts is meant to be his fourth most favourable state. If he loses there, it would suggest that he is only able to win in the two most favourable states in the country, Vermont and New Hampshire, and literally everywhere else is going to go to Clinton. Remember he already lost Iowa, his third most favourable state. Also, the fact that delegates are awarded proportionally in these contests means that Sanders isn't going to be able to easily close any large gap that emerges from Super Tuesday. If Clinton is 100-200 delegates ahead of him, it isn't a case of Sanders just narrowly winning a few big states and jumping straight ahead - he'd need a string of crushing victories over Clinton to make it up at that point.
[QUOTE=smurfy;49828314]This isn't going to, but Tuesday will[/QUOTE] It wont destroy his campaign, but March 1st will just confirm that he doesn't have a chance. Sanders could keep going until May unless Tuesday turns out to be a bloodbath, in which case an April or late March exit is possible following a rout in Florida and Ohio. It doesn't get any easier for him after Super Tuesday that's for sure.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49828214]His campaign may be the strongest populist movement in decades, but is it "establishment" strong? We'll have to find out.[/QUOTE] The funny thing is, [URL="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populist"]Clinton's campaign also easily qualifies as "populist"[/URL], albeit by a very different meaning of the word :v: (Personally I'd probably have used [URL="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/popular"]"popular"[/URL] for Sanders' campaign since populist campaigns are the norm in the US anyway and that word has more meanings that describe the distinguishing aspect here.)
[QUOTE=Tamschi;49830123]The funny thing is, [URL="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populist"]Clinton's campaign also easily qualifies as "populist"[/URL], albeit by a very different meaning of the word :v: (Personally I'd probably have used [URL="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/popular"]"popular"[/URL] for Sanders' campaign since populist campaigns are the norm in the US anyway and that word has more meanings that describe the distinguishing aspect here.)[/QUOTE] In the US, populist means this: [url]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populism[/url] Basically being "for the average Joe" instead of the "robber baron 1% elite".
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49830145]In the US, populist means this: [url]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populism[/url] Basically being "for the average Joe" instead of the "robber baron 1% elite".[/QUOTE] Ah, so the second definition doesn't apply as much over there? Good to know. Over here we almost exclusively use it as derogatory noun, when someone makes empty promises or promises without conviction.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49829418]Of all the states that you listed, none of them really make a difference due to their low number of delegates with the exception of Texas, which Clinton has a ~30 point lead roughly over Sanders.[/QUOTE] MA has 116 and Colorado and Minnesota have similar numbers compared to the southern states she's competing in. But like I said, it is how well he competes in all states that really matters.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;49830264]Ah, so the second definition doesn't apply as much over there? Good to know. Over here we almost exclusively use it as derogatory noun, when someone makes empty promises or promises without conviction.[/QUOTE] I don't think it really has any connotation here, positive or negative. I suppose it's sort of both depending on how it's used to describe a person, either you're saying "yeah he's great for the low class people" or you're saying "he's a just a demagogue". [editline]28th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49830270]MA has 116 and Colorado and Minnesota have similar numbers compared to the southern states she's competing in. But like I said, it is how well he competes in all states that really matters.[/QUOTE] He will do poorly in majority of the states. If not poorly, then just marginally come into 2nd place. Other states, like Texas and California have faaar more delegates than MA, Colorado or Minnesota, even if Sanders makes it a tie, it's still not going to gain him delegates more than Clinton.
So democratic turnout is down, Republican turnout is high. Sanders is fighting an increasingly uphill battle against Hillary, and Trump seems all but untouchable in getting the nomination. I honestly think Trump has a legitimate chance if something doesn't change.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49829397]The American two-party system [I]is[/I] flawed, though, and obviously there's a huge amount of corporate influence, and I'm saying this as an outsider. Would you disagree that only having two political parties really isn't detrimental to democracy? You simply can't cover 315 million people with only two party lines. Would you disagree that it's peculiar that two families (Clinton and Bush) could potentially have had four presidents between them in the last ~25 years by January 22nd? The American political system really isn't all that democratic. Not to say we don't have problems in Denmark (that I take very seriously), but they pale in comparison the US'.[/QUOTE] Two parties do work when they allow a political spectrum, but we have seen in the last decade or so a shift of the extremes running both parties, pajorative terms like RHINO aimed at moderates to shame them, the Republicans basically are becoming a party run by the far right while the Democrats shifted centerist in the 90s for Bill and they've ignored the progressives for decades. Its the lack of spectrum that has created the polarised Congress, the croneyism, and the two antiestablishment pushes in both parties
I'm kinda disappointed, I really wanted to see Sanders vs Trump. Far-left populist rhetoric against far-right populist rhetoric, what could be better?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49829641] These are the states holding primaries/caucuses for the Democratic Party: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Colorado Here are how things are polling so far in said states: -poll links- So Clinton wins by a significant percentage in each of these states with the exception of Massachusetts and Vermont. Not only that, but majority of these states, which definitely include the two Sanders is doing well in, are really insignificant to the whole delegate count. They don't add much to the convention as a whole - with the exception of Texas, which is why I bolded it. Texas is in the top 5 delegate count for the convention (#3 iirc), the others I've posted on another page here but Clinton is winning the polls there too. Texas, the big state that matters, will fall to Clinton as well as much, if not all, of the south states. So I think it's pretty damn easy to call the election just prior to Super Tuesday. No, the polls don't represent 100% what the voting will actually be, but they're pretty damn close and Sanders supporters can keep harping about how "oh he wasn't suppose to win here or there" but it's still not fucking giving him the nomination.[/QUOTE] I'd really wish you'd stop posting that. Support for Bernie has increased significantly in a lot of states since last year and early January. I've had polls showing him leading in Colorado, for example.
This is lame as hell. Hillary is basically winning on her husband's merits, Sanders get left behind and Trump is pretty much going to be president. Yes, I'm calling it. Hillary is going to get slaughtered by Trump. No I don't like, but it's happening anyway.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49830590]Who gives a fuck about Colorado? It's insignificant compared to all the states that Hillary is going to win in several landslides come Tuesday.[/QUOTE] It was an example, I implied had more. Nice reading comprehension skills mate.
[QUOTE=Eva-1337;49830709]This is lame as hell. Hillary is basically winning on her husband's merits, Sanders get left behind and Trump is pretty much going to be president. Yes, I'm calling it. Hillary is going to get slaughtered by Trump. No I don't like, but it's happening anyway.[/QUOTE] I can see this happening if turnout stays this high for the republicans. Which is going to result in some of the worst 4 years of our nation's history.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;49830828]It was an example, I implied had more. Nice reading comprehension skills mate.[/QUOTE] If you have polls that show differently than what I've presented, then you should like, present them?
Clinton vs Trump, whichever wins America is still fucked.
[QUOTE=Source;49831483]Clinton vs Trump, whichever wins America is still fucked.[/QUOTE] Your vote is your voice. Vote Gary Johnson or Jill Stein(if the Green Party is on the ballot in your state) to show your dissatisfaction with the political system. 1% of the vote went to the Libertarians in 2012, the most any third party received since the Reform Party in the 90's. Obama was clearly the better choice, he had no scandals surrounding him and no shady past and still had a favorable public opinion. Romney while slightly out of touch with middle class and lower class Americans was more moderate then he showed if you looked at his past as Governor. Neither of them were clearly far left/right like what we have now. There is a bubble surrounding D.C with the growing extremism and unaffiliated and independent voters are increasing nationally. Imagine how many other people are saying "My vote doesn't matter..." across the nation, potentially millions. If the Libertarians or Green Party get even close to 5% of those people come next election the parties will look at that and say "Holy shit this 5% could make or break us if there is a small margin difference in the polls!"
[QUOTE=Inspector Jones;49830375]So democratic turnout is down, Republican turnout is high. Sanders is fighting an increasingly uphill battle against Hillary, and Trump seems all but untouchable in getting the nomination. I honestly think Trump has a legitimate chance if something doesn't change.[/QUOTE] The problem I have with that sentiment is that although Republican turnout is high Donald only has less than half the support. More Republicans would rather see him out of the Whitehouse than in it. They'll do everything in their power to vote for anyone else because Trump makes a mockery of the moderate platform of the Republicans. In the end I'm sure one of the other Republicans will run third party and split the vote, if anything, because they hate him so much
I feel like a candidate should have a major spot in the final elections if they have more than 40% support of any one party.
I guess money makes the world go round. even entire nations are for sale to the highest bidder nothing i didn't already know but I can't say I am not disappointed
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49831538]Your vote is your voice. Vote Gary Johnson or Jill Stein(if the Green Party is on the ballot in your state) to show your dissatisfaction with the political system. 1% of the vote went to the Libertarians in 2012, the most any third party received since the Reform Party in the 90's. Obama was clearly the better choice, he had no scandals surrounding him and no shady past and still had a favorable public opinion. Romney while slightly out of touch with middle class and lower class Americans was more moderate then he showed if you looked at his past as Governor. Neither of them were clearly far left/right like what we have now. There is a bubble surrounding D.C with the growing extremism and unaffiliated and independent voters are increasing nationally. Imagine how many other people are saying "My vote doesn't matter..." across the nation, potentially millions. If the Libertarians or Green Party get even close to 5% of those people come next election the parties will look at that and say "Holy shit this 5% could make or break us if there is a small margin difference in the polls!"[/QUOTE] I'd rather use my vote for something like Hillary than throw it away and have Trump or another maniac win. Tbh I've said it before but there's too much on the line "to show your dissatisfaction".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.