[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Ngelmish]

You really don't come into this thread except to whine about Sanders, do you?

I mean, I'd be willing to interpret Sanders' character and motivations more generously, but there's no denying that he's had a very successful political career based, at least in part, on repeatedly, publicly expressing contempt for the Democratic party who are his putative allies.

I'm sure he thinks he's doing good things, but I can also understand why the kinds of people he's insulted over the years might find it cynical.

[AiliailiA]

Assuming Clinton gets a 10 point win, that means going forward Bernie would have to win every contest 70-30 to get the nomination. At least according to NBCnews. I find the odds of Bernie locking down 70% of all remaining delegates rather long. That's not mentioning the April 26th races where Bernie is also trailing quite badly.

Currently, estimated pledged delegates stand 1305-1099 (and Sanders may yet pick up some more pledged delegates in the caucus contes, given the way things have gone in Nevada and Colorado). There are 1647 delegates remaining to assign.

If Clinton wins New York by 10 points, that's a 136-111 split in pledged delegates

Assuming 45/55 (after elimination of disqualified candidate votes and spoiled ballots) and also assuming an even spread across every district ... I get 18 districts with 6 delegates splitting 3/3, 4 districts with 7 delegates splitting 4/3 to Clinton, and 5 districts with 5 delegates splitting 3/2 to Clinton.
Then 0.55 x 30 PLEOs is 17.5 exactly so that goes either 17 or 18 depending on decimal places after that "10 point" win.
Then 0.55 x 54 At-Large is 29.7, ie 30 delegates
Grand total: 132 or 133 for Clinton, 114 or 115 for Sanders

The assumption of an even spread across districts isn't sound of course, but I illlustrate the "dampening" effect of so many 6-delegate districts.

, leaving us at 1441-1210 with 1400 left. If Sanders wins 816 of the remaining delegates, which is 58%, not anywhere near 70%, he has 2026 pledged delegates and a majority of pledged delegates.

It's interesting that despite an expected loss in NY it's still at 58% of all remaining (it's been that for a while). Those pickups for Sanders in the county caucuses must have helped more than I noticed.

[USS Monitor]

Hardly- I went out of state. Tuition as a non-resident is murderous. No, I had my university paid for by scholarships I gained on account of the work I did academically, and not insubstantial student loans.

You know, not everyone has the luxury of having 16k on hand to make that choice. I'm going to an in-state uni with scholarships and not insubstantial amounts of student loans. Most people I know are, in fact. I know of no one who had 16k given to them for their college career.

My parents paid part of my college tuition, and I'm pretty sure their share was over $16K. My family is well-off, but we're not billionaires or anything. Not everyone gets that kind of help, but it's not a rare privilege like Donald Trump's "small loan of a million dollars."

[Conserative Morality]

My parents paid part of my college tuition, and I'm pretty sure their share was over $16K. My family is well-off, but we're not billionaires or anything. Not everyone gets that kind of help, but it's not a rare privilege like Donald Trump's "small loan of a million dollars."

Presumably you wouldn't cite the 16k as evidence of you pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and having minimal help from your parents. It's about attitude.

[USS Monitor]

Bernie is delusional. Well, at the very least his campaign manager is.

Here’s the truth: we don’t have to win New York on Tuesday, but we have to pick up a lot of delegates"

No man, you HAVE to win. If you don't your boy is sunk. Absolutely must win.

Saying crap like that is part of the job.

Here's Bernie on why he's not bothering to support down ticket Democrats.

For Democrats to do well, not only at the highest level but in the Senate races and in the House races, we need a large voter turnout, I think there's very little doubt that a Bernie Sanders winning the nomination and being the Democratic candidate will in fact create the kind of excitement and large voter turnout not only to win the White House but to regain control of the Senate, to win governors' chairs all over the country."

He's still counting on that revolution (which has yet to show up). Guess that conveniently leaves him all the money.

People who don't normally vote in Democratic primaries HAVE been showing up. They just don't outnumber the long-time Democrats that have been voting for Hillary.

[G-Tech Corporation]

My parents paid part of my college tuition, and I'm pretty sure their share was over $16K. My family is well-off, but we're not billionaires or anything. Not everyone gets that kind of help, but it's not a rare privilege like Donald Trump's "small loan of a million dollars."

Presumably you wouldn't cite the 16k as evidence of you pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and having minimal help from your parents. It's about attitude.

If you want to bring this up, that's fine. Cite where you think I said I pulled myself up by my bootstraps- put up or shut up.

[USS Monitor]

I'm willing to do so for both, and I think that a healthy dose of historical context, when talking about old quotations, is important.

As I said above though, Hillary Clinton, and almost the entire Democratic party including her husband, has publicly admitted that either the crime bill was a mistake or that at the least, it had unintended consequences that they are now apologizing for. We can parse their statements and motivations and honesty, of course, but the party has publicly swung away from all of that. Sanders hasn't disavowed his repeatedly stated contempt for the institution that he's now asking to be made figure-head of, and the way he's campaigned and language he's used leaves little doubt that he would be insincere if he did so.

It's kind of silly really. Bernie has made no bones about his disgust for everybody who is part of 'the system', Republican and Democrat. He has a sweetheart deal with the Democrats regarding his position in Congress, but beyond that he only grudgingly picked up the Democrat nametag because he couldn't get anywhere as an Independent, and his campaign, and total lack of cooperation or fundraising or attempts to help anyone else in the Party (until very recently finally giving in to the criticism and doing some minimal noisemaking about a whole 3 down-ballot candidates who support him) has made it clear that he really just views working with "Democrats" as an unpleasant necessity for getting himself into the White House.

And his supporters know it, it's why the only defense they can come up with is "Well Bernie said he wants lots of people to come vote for him, and that will probably incidentally benefit the Democrats! So that proves he's totally not cynically using the Democratic party as an expendable political tool and that's why Democrat voters and especially the Super delegates should totally throw their support behind him!"

He is cynically using the Democratic Party. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective for the party to return the favor and take advantage of the excitement that Bernie has stirred up.

[USS Monitor]

My parents paid part of my college tuition, and I'm pretty sure their share was over $16K. My family is well-off, but we're not billionaires or anything. Not everyone gets that kind of help, but it's not a rare privilege like Donald Trump's "small loan of a million dollars."

Presumably you wouldn't cite the 16k as evidence of you pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and having minimal help from your parents. It's about attitude.

It would depend on context, but I wouldn't say I got to where I am entirely on my own.

[Penguin Union Nation]

He is cynically using the Democratic Party. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective for the party to return the favor and take advantage of the excitement that Bernie has stirred up.

I wouldn't call trying to put the Democrats back in place as a party of liberals as cynically using it, more like trying to restore some sanity to it.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Presumably you wouldn't cite the 16k as evidence of you pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and having minimal help from your parents. It's about attitude.

It would depend on context, but I wouldn't say I got to where I am entirely on my own.

'Twas an earlier conversation about what precisely makes one scum-sucking bourgeoisie. My standpoint is that, since I built my own wealth, albeit with 16k for a four-grand-a-year university and things like a high school education, it's hardly reasonable to categorize such individuals as myself as somehow capitalist bloodsuckers who only succeed by dint of family.

CM's standpoint is that a family which saves money to send children to university is basically the same as Trump's small loan.

[Geilinor]

It would depend on context, but I wouldn't say I got to where I am entirely on my own.

'Twas an earlier conversation about what precisely makes one scum-sucking bourgeoisie. My standpoint is that, since I built my own wealth, albeit with 16k for a four-grand-a-year university and things like a high school education, it's hardly reasonable to categorize such individuals as myself as somehow capitalist bloodsuckers who only succeed by dint of family.

CM's standpoint is that a family which saves money to send children to university is basically the same as Trump's small loan.

I don't think anybody was trying to categorize you as a "capitalist bloodsucker".

[G-Tech Corporation]

'Twas an earlier conversation about what precisely makes one scum-sucking bourgeoisie. My standpoint is that, since I built my own wealth, albeit with 16k for a four-grand-a-year university and things like a high school education, it's hardly reasonable to categorize such individuals as myself as somehow capitalist bloodsuckers who only succeed by dint of family.

CM's standpoint is that a family which saves money to send children to university is basically the same as Trump's small loan.

I don't think anybody was trying to categorize you as a "capitalist bloodsucker".

I believe wild pitchforkings were mentioned

And something something rich kids out of touch with blah.

[Ngelmish]

He is cynically using the Democratic Party. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective for the party to return the favor and take advantage of the excitement that Bernie has stirred up.

I wouldn't call trying to put the Democrats back in place as a party of liberals as cynically using it, more like trying to restore some sanity to it.

Here's the thing though, the party has been moving in a steadily more liberal direction for at least the last 10 or 15 years. Al Gore was the last major Democratic presidential candidate to run as an avowed moderate, and he ran as being less conservative than Bill Clinton.

Look at 2016 alone: Hillary Clinton began her campaign from a more liberal place than she ran on in 2008, and with positions that are widely accepted as being in the mainstream of the party. Bernie Sanders has run his campaign claiming to be the only authentic voice of progressivism. Martin O'Malley ran as an authentic progressive with an unabashed record of progressive accomplishments. Only Jim Webb tried to run as an explicitly conservative Democrat, and even back in 2004 the conservative democrats never got much traction.

This is where the party wound up on its own, before Bernie Sanders ran for president or was thought to have any chance at having a serious impact. Now you could argue that he's part of a broader trend inside the party, but that's just it: It is broader. His candidacy is not the tip of the spear in that sense.

[Tahar Joblis]

Currently, estimated pledged delegates stand 1305-1099 (and Sanders may yet pick up some more pledged delegates in the caucus contes, given the way things have gone in Nevada and Colorado). There are 1647 delegates remaining to assign.

If Clinton wins New York by 10 points, that's a 136-111 split in pledged delegates

Assuming 45/55 (after elimination of disqualified candidate votes and spoiled ballots) and also assuming an even spread across every district ... I get 18 districts with 6 delegates splitting 3/3, 4 districts with 7 delegates splitting 4/3 to Clinton, and 5 districts with 5 delegates splitting 3/2 to Clinton.
Then 0.55 x 30 PLEOs is 17.5 exactly so that goes either 17 or 18 depending on decimal places after that "10 point" win.
Then 0.55 x 54 At-Large is 29.7, ie 30 delegates
Grand total: 132 or 133 for Clinton, 114 or 115 for Sanders

The assumption of an even spread across districts isn't sound of course, but I illlustrate the "dampening" effect of so many 6-delegate districts.

, leaving us at 1441-1210 with 1400 left. If Sanders wins 816 of the remaining delegates, which is 58%, not anywhere near 70%, he has 2026 pledged delegates and a majority of pledged delegates.

It's interesting that despite an expected loss in NY it's still at 58% of all remaining (it's been that for a while). Those pickups for Sanders in the county caucuses must have helped more than I noticed.

Well, if you move delegates from one column to another, that is both subtracting them from one side and adding them to the other side, so it does make quite a difference (and we might not be done with those shifts).

The other factor is that even though New York is a very large pile of delegates as these things go, it's still less than 15% of the remaining pledged delegates.

[Penguin Union Nation]

Here's the thing though, the party has been moving in a steadily more liberal direction for at least the last 10 or 15 years. Al Gore was the last major Democratic presidential candidate to run as an avowed moderate, and he ran as being less conservative than Bill Clinton.

Look at 2016 alone: Hillary Clinton began her campaign from a more liberal place than she ran on in 2008, and with positions that are widely accepted as being in the mainstream of the party. Bernie Sanders has run his campaign claiming to be the only authentic voice of progressivism. Martin O'Malley ran as an authentic progressive with an unabashed record of progressive accomplishments. Only Jim Webb tried to run as an explicitly conservative Democrat, and even back in 2004 the conservative democrats never got much traction.

This is where the party wound up on its own, before Bernie Sanders ran for president or was thought to have any chance at having a serious impact. Now you could argue that he's part of a broader trend inside the party, but that's just it: It is broader. His candidacy is not the tip of the spear in that sense.

But $hillary is only progressive when prodded and poked. She rarely takes any initiative. She's a weather vane that merely waits to see which way the wind is blowing. She has no autonomy as a human being, everything that drives her is from external forces, and overwhelmingly moneyed interests.

[Geilinor]

Here's the thing though, the party has been moving in a steadily more liberal direction for at least the last 10 or 15 years. Al Gore was the last major Democratic presidential candidate to run as an avowed moderate, and he ran as being less conservative than Bill Clinton.

Look at 2016 alone: Hillary Clinton began her campaign from a more liberal place than she ran on in 2008, and with positions that are widely accepted as being in the mainstream of the party. Bernie Sanders has run his campaign claiming to be the only authentic voice of progressivism. Martin O'Malley ran as an authentic progressive with an unabashed record of progressive accomplishments. Only Jim Webb tried to run as an explicitly conservative Democrat, and even back in 2004 the conservative democrats never got much traction.

This is where the party wound up on its own, before Bernie Sanders ran for president or was thought to have any chance at having a serious impact. Now you could argue that he's part of a broader trend inside the party, but that's just it: It is broader. His candidacy is not the tip of the spear in that sense.

But $hillary is only progressive when prodded and poked. She rarely takes any initiative. She's a weather vane that merely waits to see which way the wind is blowing. She has no autonomy as a human being, everything that drives her is from external forces, and overwhelmingly moneyed interests.

Liberal and progressive are not the same thing. The party should try to represent all Democrats, not just some.

[Ngelmish]

Here's the thing though, the party has been moving in a steadily more liberal direction for at least the last 10 or 15 years. Al Gore was the last major Democratic presidential candidate to run as an avowed moderate, and he ran as being less conservative than Bill Clinton.

Look at 2016 alone: Hillary Clinton began her campaign from a more liberal place than she ran on in 2008, and with positions that are widely accepted as being in the mainstream of the party. Bernie Sanders has run his campaign claiming to be the only authentic voice of progressivism. Martin O'Malley ran as an authentic progressive with an unabashed record of progressive accomplishments. Only Jim Webb tried to run as an explicitly conservative Democrat, and even back in 2004 the conservative democrats never got much traction.

This is where the party wound up on its own, before Bernie Sanders ran for president or was thought to have any chance at having a serious impact. Now you could argue that he's part of a broader trend inside the party, but that's just it: It is broader. His candidacy is not the tip of the spear in that sense.

But $hillary is only progressive when prodded and poked. She rarely takes any initiative. She's a weather vane that merely waits to see which way the wind is blowing. She has no autonomy as a human being, everything that drives her is from external forces, and overwhelmingly moneyed interests.

There are several policy areas where Hillary's record is consistently and conventionally progressive: Healthcare access, taxes, guns, immigration, and energy to name a few. On at least two of those she's actually to Bernie's left.

But regardless of your opinions about Hillary Clinton's personal motivations (I have no idea how you would know that she's an automaton, for instance), you do concede that the party has been moving left as a whole for a number of years now, yes?

[USS Monitor]

He is cynically using the Democratic Party. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective for the party to return the favor and take advantage of the excitement that Bernie has stirred up.

I wouldn't call trying to put the Democrats back in place as a party of liberals as cynically using it, more like trying to restore some sanity to it.

The Republicans are supposed to be the party of liberals. Kids these days and their backward political parties...

[Kelinfort]

Here's the thing though, the party has been moving in a steadily more liberal direction for at least the last 10 or 15 years. Al Gore was the last major Democratic presidential candidate to run as an avowed moderate, and he ran as being less conservative than Bill Clinton.

Look at 2016 alone: Hillary Clinton began her campaign from a more liberal place than she ran on in 2008, and with positions that are widely accepted as being in the mainstream of the party. Bernie Sanders has run his campaign claiming to be the only authentic voice of progressivism. Martin O'Malley ran as an authentic progressive with an unabashed record of progressive accomplishments. Only Jim Webb tried to run as an explicitly conservative Democrat, and even back in 2004 the conservative democrats never got much traction.

This is where the party wound up on its own, before Bernie Sanders ran for president or was thought to have any chance at having a serious impact. Now you could argue that he's part of a broader trend inside the party, but that's just it: It is broader. His candidacy is not the tip of the spear in that sense.

But $hillary is only progressive when prodded and poked. She rarely takes any initiative. She's a weather vane that merely waits to see which way the wind is blowing. She has no autonomy as a human being, everything that drives her is from external forces, and overwhelmingly moneyed interests.

#feeltheedge

[AiliailiA]

Assuming 45/55 (after elimination of disqualified candidate votes and spoiled ballots) and also assuming an even spread across every district ... I get 18 districts with 6 delegates splitting 3/3, 4 districts with 7 delegates splitting 4/3 to Clinton, and 5 districts with 5 delegates splitting 3/2 to Clinton.
Then 0.55 x 30 PLEOs is 17.5 exactly so that goes either 17 or 18 depending on decimal places after that "10 point" win.
Then 0.55 x 54 At-Large is 29.7, ie 30 delegates
Grand total: 132 or 133 for Clinton, 114 or 115 for Sanders

The assumption of an even spread across districts isn't sound of course, but I illlustrate the "dampening" effect of so many 6-delegate districts.



It's interesting that despite an expected loss in NY it's still at 58% of all remaining (it's been that for a while). Those pickups for Sanders in the county caucuses must have helped more than I noticed.

Well, if you move delegates from one column to another, that is both subtracting them from one side and adding them to the other side, so it does make quite a difference (and we might not be done with those shifts).

I guess (and yes).

The other factor is that even though New York is a very large pile of delegates as these things go, it's still less than 15% of the remaining pledged delegates.

Yeah, and just one week later is a bigger pile: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island for 384 pledged delegates. (27% of the remaining 1400).

Whatever happens in NY I don't think we'll be talking about it for long ...

[New confederate ramenia]

But $hillary is only progressive when prodded and poked. She rarely takes any initiative. She's a weather vane that merely waits to see which way the wind is blowing. She has no autonomy as a human being, everything that drives her is from external forces, and overwhelmingly moneyed interests.

There are several policy areas where Hillary's record is consistently and conventionally progressive: Healthcare access, taxes, guns, immigration, and energy to name a few. On at least two of those she's actually to Bernie's left.

But regardless of your opinions about Hillary Clinton's personal motivations (I have no idea how you would know that she's an automaton, for instance), you do concede that the party has been moving left as a whole for a number of years now, yes?

(toca de) ACA isn't progressive, only universal healthcare is progressive. And where is Hillary Clinton to Sanders' left?

[Kelinfort]

There are several policy areas where Hillary's record is consistently and conventionally progressive: Healthcare access, taxes, guns, immigration, and energy to name a few. On at least two of those she's actually to Bernie's left.

But regardless of your opinions about Hillary Clinton's personal motivations (I have no idea how you would know that she's an automaton, for instance), you do concede that the party has been moving left as a whole for a number of years now, yes?

(toca de) ACA isn't progressive, only universal healthcare is progressive. And where is Hillary Clinton to Sanders' left?

pro·gres·sive
prəˈɡresiv/
adjective
1.
happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
"a progressive decline in popularity"
synonyms: continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, accelerating, escalating; More
2.
(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

It fits the definition.

[Ngelmish]

There are several policy areas where Hillary's record is consistently and conventionally progressive: Healthcare access, taxes, guns, immigration, and energy to name a few. On at least two of those she's actually to Bernie's left.

But regardless of your opinions about Hillary Clinton's personal motivations (I have no idea how you would know that she's an automaton, for instance), you do concede that the party has been moving left as a whole for a number of years now, yes?

(toca de) ACA isn't progressive, only universal healthcare is progressive. And where is Hillary Clinton to Sanders' left?

I wasn't even referring exclusively to the ACA (incrementalism is progressive if you start with nothing and get half a loaf), I think her work on CHIP is an even better example. She has a more progressive record on guns and immigration than Sanders does. There's also the fact that Sanders wants to outright ban nuclear energy and fracking, on relatively thin scientific grounds, but there's a lot of room for debate there about what the appropriately progressive course of action would be.

[AiliailiA]

(toca de) ACA isn't progressive, only universal healthcare is progressive. And where is Hillary Clinton to Sanders' left?

pro·gres·sive
prəˈɡresiv/
adjective
1.
happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
"a progressive decline in popularity"
synonyms: continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, accelerating, escalating; More
2.
(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

It fits the definition.

It fits definition 1 (gradualist basically) but the political definition is definition 2.

Note there are three options regarding ACA, not just two. There's keeping it (perhaps with a few adjustments, Clinton). There's making it irrelevant (by extending Medicare, Sanders). But there's also abolishing it (and replacing it with ... we'll tell you after abolishing it, Republicans).

Option 2 might be better than option 1, but they're both much better than option 3!

[Kelinfort]

It fits the definition.

It fits definition 1 (gradualist basically) but the political definition is definition 2.

Note there are three options regarding ACA, not just two. There's keeping it (perhaps with a few adjustments, Clinton). There's making it irrelevant (by extending Medicare, Sanders). But there's also abolishing it (and replacing it with ... we'll tell you after abolishing it, Republicans).

Option 2 might be better than option 1, but they're both much better than option 3!

Option 2 lacks specifics. I'd much rather we do something along the lines of Japan or the Netherlands.