|
Ok, makes a fair amount of sense. So how hosed is Bernie because of it?
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Ok, makes a fair amount of sense. So how hosed is Bernie because of it? Not at all. If Bernie shows he has a mandate, those super delegates will flip. Basically any story you see about "The DNC spit in our faces in NH" is written by someone who either does not understand the process and should not be writing about it, or someone who does and is being willfully dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Not at all. If Bernie shows he has a mandate, those super delegates will flip. Right, thanks very much, I'm way more chilled now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
I wanna talk a little more about the Rubio camps messaging with respect to how media creates the electoral narratives and then they become real. In Iowa, you had a bunch of opeds and punditry saying that coming in third for Rubio is as good as a win. So reporters started asking his campaign about it. Next thing you know the campaign itself is espousing this "third is first idea" and the media is reporting it as if it came from the campaign, as if it was the goal all along. This "brokered convention" strategy is the same thing. Some reporters start asking campaign flacks if a brokered convention is a possible path for Rubio, the campaign looks at it and decides it's a possible strategy, then the campaign starts saying "brokered convention is a win for us", the press reports this uncritically, Rubio gets to keep campaigning as a serious contender even though he's coming in third or worse in primary after primary. It's why you absolutely have to pay to media narrative, because media coverage essentially creates campaign reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Translation: PLEASE MAKE KASICH AND BUSH GO AWAY Bush is trying hard to gently caress off ok?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Bush is trying hard to gently caress off ok? He should try harder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OE_lHQZGuM
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Can someone explain to me what the hell superdelegates are and why Hillary's apparently got more of them or something despite losing New Hampshire? In 1968 the Democratic Party changed its delegate selection process to weaken the control of party leaders and make the party more responsive to the voters. In 1982 the Hunt commission (an intra Democratic Party commission headed by then governor of NC Jim Hunt, not an actual government commission) put out a series of recommendations on changing the process again, as the party blamed the 1968 rules change on the selection of McGovern and Carter and wanted to restore more power to the party to over rule or at least water down the choices of the electorate. The super-delegates are presently "distinguished party leaders" (chairs, fundraisers, former office holders etc) after changes in what qualifies you for the status over the years. Again, they are picked by the party and not by the state primary vote. The number of super-delegates has changed but now are about 20% of the total delegates. A number of them are apportioned by state but they are not bound by the result of the state primary, letting them be wined and dined by candidates to secure additional support. Tldr: a way for the party to exert more control after the plebes picked McGovern and Carter instead of people the elites approved of. I won't be shocked if adding them to the GOP doesn't at least get talked about in the aftermath of this year
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:In 1968 the Democratic Party changed its delegate selection process to weaken the control of party leaders and make the party more responsive to the voters. I would really like for the primary process to be standardized and get rid of all the dumb bullshit that separates the two parties. But American loving loves dumb bureaucratic bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
McGovern and Carter were electoral disasters, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Ok, makes a fair amount of sense. So how hosed is Bernie because of it? Well, they don't appear to be stupid enough to try to take it away from him at the convention if he is outright winning in the popular vote. They aren't bound to Clinton even after backing her so they would hop over rather than burn the party to the ground. But in the mean time it means Bernie needs to consistently win ~2/3rds of the vote in each primary just to keep competitive with Clinton. So it is a stumbling block. Personally I don't see his campaign going the full distance at sufficient strength even if they didn't exist. So I wouldn't say they are going to be what blocks him from the nomination. But they aren't a help to his campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
zoux posted:McGovern and Carter were electoral disasters, to be fair. With Carter they got what they paid for - a Washington Outsider who wouldn't deal with those scummy politicians. It just turned out that being ideologically pure is a great way to have a poo poo presidency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:With Carter they got what they paid for - a Washington Outsider who wouldn't deal with those scummy politicians. Which in fairness to Sanders -- even though I have compared him to Carter -- he isn't an "outsider" in the sense that Carter was; the Democratic establishment loving hated Carter. Byrd spent the entirety of four years loving him over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
As a pure "mechanics" question because I don't want to bring back primarychat: Would it be fair to say that Sanders' shot at the nomination lies in having enough pledged delegates that Hillary needs the superdelegate margin to win, and then hoping the DNC does not pull that trigger over fears of delegitimizing the process?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Which in fairness to Sanders -- even though I have compared him to Carter -- he isn't an "outsider" in the sense that Carter was; the Democratic establishment loving hated Carter. It seems strange to us because in our lifetimes evangelicals are the strongest GOP base bloc, but Carter was the guy that brought evangelical voters into politics. He was the first "born again" candidate. Also McGovern and Carter got us Nixon and Reagan so, I can understand why the party would want to prevent that from happening again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As a pure "mechanics" question because I don't want to bring back primarychat: Would it be fair to say that Sanders' shot at the nomination lies in having enough pledged delegates that Hillary needs the superdelegate margin to win, and then hoping the DNC does not pull that trigger over fears of delegitimizing the process? That's the most likely scenario, yes. There's enough of a divide that he won't win outright, so his hope is that he gets close to an outright majority of delegates, and then the Superdelegates flip. Which, if the ~20% of delegates are already committed to Hillary, means that he has to keep up his NH performance in basically every other state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As a pure "mechanics" question because I don't want to bring back primarychat: Would it be fair to say that Sanders' shot at the nomination lies in having enough pledged delegates that Hillary needs the superdelegate margin to win, and then hoping the DNC does not pull that trigger over fears of delegitimizing the process? To a degree, yes. He needs to win convincingly in big, diverse states to show that not only is he viable, but that he has support beyond the far-left of the party. So, like if he does very well on Super Tuesday (assuming he loses NV/SC or splits them) and were to win say, Texas and Virginia, I think you would see the Super Delegates flee Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I would really like for the primary process to be standardized and get rid of all the dumb bullshit that separates the two parties. But American loving loves dumb bureaucratic bullshit. One of the biggest fuckeries the conservatives have pulled is in positioning what states have their primaries when. Iowa-NH-SC already creates a filter that disadvantages certain candidates just by virtue of the demographics and beliefs of the electorate; it means that rural-libertarian-social conservative candidates get the early boost instead. If it was Illinois-Massachusetts-Florida instead you'd see a very different set of views being privileged as they were espoused by every candidate looking at high office (akin to how ethanol is going nowhere because no congressman wants to be the one who killed it and then try to run in Iowa) I basically have to salute Norquist for his newest and most insidious fuckery of "the SEC primary" where they are moving a bunch of Deep South states to hold their primaries on the same day early in the cycle. Because then, again, it means that anyone looking at the high office has to play to those folks, otherwise you'd be coming to the late states at a big delegate disadvantage. I mean ideally we'd do like a 5 week primary, 10 states every week, selected to represent the makeup of America as evenly as possible. Then that done things quiet down for a few months and we have a short election. But that's not gonna happen so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:One of the biggest fuckeries the conservatives have pulled is in positioning what states have their primaries when. Iowa-NH-SC already creates a filter that disadvantages certain candidates just by virtue of the demographics and beliefs of the electorate; it means that rural-libertarian-social conservative candidates get the early boost instead. If it was Illinois-Massachusetts-Florida instead you'd see a very different set of views being privileged as they were espoused by every candidate looking at high office (akin to how ethanol is going nowhere because no congressman wants to be the one who killed it and then try to run in Iowa) I can generally get behind this. My proposal was for 4 primaries spread across a month in July divided up by region and rotating. The problem, as I was explaining to someone, is that the people who make the decisions on these things, have zero interest in shortening the primary season; particularly on the Republican side where "professional networks" are stronger/bigger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As a pure "mechanics" question because I don't want to bring back primarychat: Would it be fair to say that Sanders' shot at the nomination lies in having enough pledged delegates that Hillary needs the superdelegate margin to win, and then hoping the DNC does not pull that trigger over fears of delegitimizing the process? Keep in mind that there are almost 5,000 delegates available and there are only about 800 superdelegates, so they will only decide a pretty close race. Also I think superdelegates can change their support at anytime so if the primary electorate is broadly supporting Sanders, I imagine you'd see some of those superdelegates flip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As a pure "mechanics" question because I don't want to bring back primarychat: Would it be fair to say that Sanders' shot at the nomination lies in having enough pledged delegates that Hillary needs the superdelegate margin to win, and then hoping the DNC does not pull that trigger over fears of delegitimizing the process? Yes? I think you are asking an overly complicated question here, basically "does he need to beat Hillary in elected delegates" or "does he need to win the primaries to win". You are overthinking it a bit (probably because it's a Byzantine system meant to confuse and keep power). Keep in mind that as we move into later states there are a lot of "winner take all" rules so it won't be splitting delegates like, say, Iowa. If he wins a majority of the elected delegates it will be because he won a majority of the elections and I don't think the DNC will nullify that At least I hope not, that's the one nightmare scenario worse than just the candidate losing to the GOP. Because then they lose and burn it so bad with the upcoming generation that the GOP gets a lock for a long time Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As a pure "mechanics" question because I don't want to bring back primarychat: Would it be fair to say that Sanders' shot at the nomination lies in having enough pledged delegates that Hillary needs the superdelegate margin to win, and then hoping the DNC does not pull that trigger over fears of delegitimizing the process? Superdelegates are only meant to pick a winner if it's a close tie between two candidates and one of them has something very wrong with them. The reason why Sanders doesn't need to worry about this is because he isn't anti-establishment (he's calling for party unity and generally aside from a few hickups hasn't rocked the boat all that much) in the traditional sense. Unless he does something really dumb he should just concern himself with winning as many delegates as possible. EDIT: Like if he was running on a "burn it all to the ground and salt the earth" platform yeah superdelegates would be a major concern for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Yes? Nope. Dem states are all almost proportional. Republicans have a bunch of dumb rules on winner take all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Keep in mind that as we move into later states there are a lot of "winner take all" rules so it won't be splitting delegates like, say, Iowa. Hello mark penn
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Fried Chicken being revealed as Mark Penn is... unsurprising.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:what the gently caress Explains a lot though, I bet that's a pretty common opinion among that type.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
zoux posted:Explains a lot though, I bet that's a pretty common opinion among that type. There's like two really dumb statements in that though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Nope. Dem states are all almost proportional. Republicans have a bunch of dumb rules on winner take all. poo poo you are right, I flipped it with all the stuff I've been reading in the GOP process lately BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Fried Chicken being revealed as Mark Penn is... unsurprising. Well now that's just hurtful
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:poo poo you are right, I flipped it with all the stuff I've been reading in the GOP process lately It's telling, again, how even people who are really high-information politic consumers don't know this poo poo. Fried Chicken posted:Well now that's just hurtful  just giving you a hard time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Really Sean? Christ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Really Sean? Christ. The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence. Which means that nothing can be proven wrong, ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's telling, again, how even people who are really high-information politic consumers don't know this poo poo. quote:
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:There's like two really dumb statements in that though. True now though since hannity said it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
So not really politics but I just found out "cuckservative" word filters to "Jeb Bush" (quote my post to see which is which).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So not really politics but I just found out "cuckservative" word filters to "Jeb Bush" (quote my post to see which is which). ahahahaha omg
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So not really politics but I just found out "cuckservative" word filters to "Jeb Bush" (quote my post to see which is which). Amazing Both this and that we can have a word filter given the ~*~awesome~*~ snippets of forums code Lowtax has been sharing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:yeah. Part of it is that like I told Gradenko, some of this is meant to be arcane and confusing as a way to trip people up (eg what is currently going on with the Indiana senate race). The other is that I think there is so drat much that if you don't focus on it as a job you will get overwhelmed - and even then there is so much the pros split it into focused teams. I think your attributing to much malice to it. The reason why modern primary systems are dumb/broken is because they have a lot of momentum and there isn't a large push for reform thanks to most candidates that get selected being generally okay. If the GOP nomination really turns into a shitshow they will probably reform theirs (if the party doesn't go down in flames from a knife fight at the convention).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
He still hasn't been waterboarded, has he?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/MartinShkreli/status/697829657031348224
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:17
|
|