[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[AiliailiA]

Here's how much New York means tonight-

If Bernie wins, It is still anybody's game and any of the 5 candidates remaining from both parties could become president.

If Hillary wins, it is likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the 45th President of the United States of America.

And Hillary is most likely to win, so you're not telling us anything we didn't know already.

Just one week after NY will be a bundle of states adding up to 155% of NY. Will you be back to tell us the same thing again?

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's how much New York means tonight-

If Bernie wins, It is still anybody's game and any of the 5 candidates remaining from both parties could become president.

If Hillary wins, it is likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the 45th President of the United States of America.

And Hillary is most likely to win, so you're not telling us anything we didn't know already.

Just one week after NY will be a bundle of states adding up to 155% of NY. Will you be back to tell us the same thing again?

Must Clinton supporters always be contemptuous, snide, and dismissive to anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of Clinton inevitability?

[Shrillland]

Here's how much New York means tonight-

If Bernie wins, It is still anybody's game and any of the 5 candidates remaining from both parties could become president.

If Hillary wins, it is likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the 45th President of the United States of America.

And Hillary is most likely to win, so you're not telling us anything we didn't know already.

Just one week after NY will be a bundle of states adding up to 155% of NY. Will you be back to tell us the same thing again?

He might, but the only two of them that Bernie will likely win are Rhode Island and possibly Delaware.

[AiliailiA]

Here's how much New York means tonight-

If Bernie wins, It is still anybody's game and any of the 5 candidates remaining from both parties could become president.

If Hillary wins, it is likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the 45th President of the United States of America.

Clinton is the likely nominee regardless, but its close enough, and Sanders' campaign committed enough, that this'll probably drag out for months yet one way or another.

But I find the thought of Kasich winning being rather amusing.

Maybe he should have changed parties and run as a Democrat

[The Romulan Republic]

And Hillary is most likely to win, so you're not telling us anything we didn't know already.

Just one week after NY will be a bundle of states adding up to 155% of NY. Will you be back to tell us the same thing again?

He might, but the only two of them that Bernie will likely win are Rhode Island and possibly Delaware.

From what I've heard, Delaware is very unlikely. I'd give him better odds, from what I've heard, in Connecticut or even Pennsylvania than in Delaware.

[54e]

Okay, so while you're busy scrutinizing the minutiae of campaign speech policy, you're missing that there was a LOT of carryover from Clinton to Bush to Obama, in both policies and appointments. Obviously nothing is exact, so what's your point?

That there are important differences too.

Obviously there are areas of broad and disturbing continued trends, but to pretend that every economic similarity is equal is facile on its face. To pretend that intervention, whether or not you think there's been too much of it, is conducted equally under Bush and Obama is wrong. You can make the broader argument that you want to make a radical break on specific policies (for that, you'd likely need to do away with term limits), but that's not the same thing as taking irrelevant potshots at any candidate's ideological records.

Presidential candidates are rarely lying about what they repeatedly say they would like to do, and they have a lot of sway over the minute details of the regulatory apparatus. So I really don't think the differences are irrelevant.

You're quoting me and then talking to a straw man at this point.

[Indian Empire]

Here's how much New York means tonight-

If Bernie wins, It is still anybody's game and any of the 5 candidates remaining from both parties could become president.

If Hillary wins, it is likely that Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the 45th President of the United States of America.

Well, I'm pretty sure we know who will win. Like I've said though, I think Bernie will keep his campaign going until DC in June, and then he'll stand behind Hillary the day afterwards. He's not a fool, he knows that it's better to show a united front in Philadelphia as the GOP tears itself to shreds in Cleveland.

I said it would be a likely chance Hillary becomes President if she wins NY- here's why:

- Sanders and Kasich are the only 2 candidates left with the math to stop Clinton. Sanders is virtually out of it if he loses New York, and Kasich has no possible path to the Republican Nomination.

- Trump cannot defeat Clinton in the General Election. Cruz beats Clinton in some polls- I don't think he can win, but he stands a better chance than Trump does.

If Clinton wins the Democratic Nomination, there is essentially nothing capable of stopping her.

[UED]

And Hillary is most likely to win, so you're not telling us anything we didn't know already.

Just one week after NY will be a bundle of states adding up to 155% of NY. Will you be back to tell us the same thing again?

Must Clinton supporters always be contemptuous, snide, and dismissive to anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of Clinton inevitability?

Must Sanders supporters always be cult like, annoying and self-righteous to anyone who doesn't worship to the church of Sanders awesomeness?

[Shrillland]

He might, but the only two of them that Bernie will likely win are Rhode Island and possibly Delaware.

From what I've heard, Delaware is very unlikely. I'd give him better odds, from what I've heard, in Connecticut or even Pennsylvania than in Delaware.

That's why I said possibly. Honestly, Connecticut is full of Hillary's wing of the party more than his, so he could be left with just Rhode Island.

[AiliailiA]

And Hillary is most likely to win, so you're not telling us anything we didn't know already.

Just one week after NY will be a bundle of states adding up to 155% of NY. Will you be back to tell us the same thing again?

He might, but the only two of them that Bernie will likely win are Rhode Island and possibly Delaware.

Maybe Connecticut, but I'm just going by where it is on the map. Most of the delegates are in Pennsylvania and that's not looking good for him.

Considering "bundles" of states like that, it becomes relevant to speak of the 58% (delegate) target Sanders needs for the rest of the primary campaign. He might win a few small states on the 26th, but will he get 58% of the delegates? Naaah.

[UED]

He might, but the only two of them that Bernie will likely win are Rhode Island and possibly Delaware.

Maybe Connecticut, but I'm just going by where it is on the map. Most of the delegates are in Pennsylvania and that's not looking good for him.

Considering "bundles" of states like that, it becomes relevant to speak of the 58% (delegate) target Sanders needs for the rest of the primary campaign. He might win a few small states on the 26th, but will he get 58% of the delegates? Naaah.

I can see Sanders possibly taking California. He'll definitely get Pennsylvania in my opinion. The distribution of delegates (via proportional) will make it extremely difficult for him to catch up. That said, I do not say that Hillary is inevitable. I think contested convention stands a somewhat moderate chance of happening.

[The Romulan Republic]

Must Clinton supporters always be contemptuous, snide, and dismissive to anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of Clinton inevitability?

Must Sanders supporters always be cult like, annoying and self-righteous to anyone who doesn't worship to the church of Sanders awesomeness?

Many Sanders supporters, of course, aren't like that. And, granted, not all Clinton supporters are obnoxious either.

But their does seem to be a pattern, increasingly, of Clinton supporters treating Sanders' side as a whole not merely as opponents, but as a lunatic fringe group to be mocked and dismissed (even up to Bill's "joke" about us wanting to shoot a third of Wall Street and thinking that would solve everything), as well as a long term-tendency (literally since before the election started) of Clinton being regarded as inevitable. Their are times when I can just feel the indignation that uppity Bernie dared to actually challenge her. And I'm telling you now, that while I personally have nothing but contempt for Bernie or Bust and similar attitudes, acting as if Sanders supporters are an irrelevant fringe will come back to bite you in the general election. Its a dangerous attitude, and if you don't want the fascist as your president, or Cruz with his slash and burn approach to the budget, or some other, similar lunatic, the Clinton camp needs to act a little less entitled and arrogant.

[Shrillland]

Maybe Connecticut, but I'm just going by where it is on the map. Most of the delegates are in Pennsylvania and that's not looking good for him.

Considering "bundles" of states like that, it becomes relevant to speak of the 58% (delegate) target Sanders needs for the rest of the primary campaign. He might win a few small states on the 26th, but will he get 58% of the delegates? Naaah.

I can see Sanders possibly taking California. He'll definitely get Pennsylvania in my opinion. The distribution of delegates (via proportional) will make it extremely difficult for him to catch up. That said, I do not say that Hillary is inevitable. I think contested convention stands a somewhat moderate chance of happening.

Bernie would be insane to take this to Philadelphia. If this were to happen, we would be entering dangerous territory that the US hasn't seen in a very long time with two brokered conventions and the possibility that both sides feel cuckolded.

[AiliailiA]

And Hillary is most likely to win, so you're not telling us anything we didn't know already.

Just one week after NY will be a bundle of states adding up to 155% of NY. Will you be back to tell us the same thing again?

Must Clinton supporters always be contemptuous, snide, and dismissive to anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of Clinton inevitability?

You're always quick to object to others you think are mischaracterizing you.

And here you are implying that I'm a Clinton supporter, and taking my post about the banality of what Indian Empire said as a contemptuous and snide dismissal of your favority candidate. You cannot imagine how absurd you look to me right now.

Tell me, is it wrong that Clinton is STILL THE MOST LIKELY TO WIN the nomination?
Is it wrong that a narrow win for Clinton in NY wouldn't change that much either way?

[The Romulan Republic]

I can see Sanders possibly taking California. He'll definitely get Pennsylvania in my opinion. The distribution of delegates (via proportional) will make it extremely difficult for him to catch up. That said, I do not say that Hillary is inevitable. I think contested convention stands a somewhat moderate chance of happening.

Bernie would be insane to take this to Philadelphia. If this were to happen, we would be entering dangerous territory that the US hasn't seen in a very long time with two brokered conventions and the possibility that both sides feel cuckolded.

I think that if Bernie has a lead in pledged delegates, and especially if he has a lead in the popular vote as well, he would be arguably justified in taking it to the convention and trying to swing super delegates so long as he makes it clear that he will support whoever the nominee ultimately is and expects his supporters to do the same.

However, if he is clearly behind in pledged delegates and popular vote, it would be futile arrogance to fight it out at the convention, and would only imperil the general election chances of the Democratic Party, which I would consider inexcusable.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Must Clinton supporters always be contemptuous, snide, and dismissive to anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of Clinton inevitability?

Must Sanders supporters always be cult like, annoying and self-righteous to anyone who doesn't worship to the church of Sanders awesomeness?

Yes... fight amongst yourselves... good, good.

Let the hate flow through you.

[The Romulan Republic]

Must Clinton supporters always be contemptuous, snide, and dismissive to anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of Clinton inevitability?

You're always quick to object to others you think are mischaracterizing you.

And here you are implying that I'm a Clinton supporter, and taking my post about the banality of what Indian Empire said as a contemptuous and snide dismissal of your favority candidate. You cannot imagine how absurd you look to me right now.

I'm sorry if I came to an inaccurate conclusion about your political affiliation. I don't have a list in my head of who all is or is not a Clinton supporter here. I look at what people are saying and draw conclusions. If I was overly hasty in doing so in this case, I apologize.

Tell me, is it wrong that Clinton is STILL THE MOST LIKELY TO WIN the nomination?

No, of course not. I've said as much myself.

Is it wrong that a narrow win for Clinton in NY wouldn't change that much either way?

Probably not, although a narrow win (especially when their is some reason to call the legitimacy of the result into question) in a state that should have been a landslide for her would not be a resounding endorsement.

[AiliailiA]

Maybe Connecticut, but I'm just going by where it is on the map. Most of the delegates are in Pennsylvania and that's not looking good for him.

Considering "bundles" of states like that, it becomes relevant to speak of the 58% (delegate) target Sanders needs for the rest of the primary campaign. He might win a few small states on the 26th, but will he get 58% of the delegates? Naaah.

I can see Sanders possibly taking California. He'll definitely get Pennsylvania in my opinion. The distribution of delegates (via proportional) will make it extremely difficult for him to catch up. That said, I do not say that Hillary is inevitable. I think contested convention stands a somewhat moderate chance of happening.

I'm not even guessing what happens in California, it's a big crazy state almost like three different states. But I think it will still be mathematically possible for Sanders to win when that last big day comes.

Meaning seven more weeks of Sander's supporters bridling at the very suggestion that the odds favor Clinton

[Ngelmish]

That there are important differences too.

Obviously there are areas of broad and disturbing continued trends, but to pretend that every economic similarity is equal is facile on its face. To pretend that intervention, whether or not you think there's been too much of it, is conducted equally under Bush and Obama is wrong. You can make the broader argument that you want to make a radical break on specific policies (for that, you'd likely need to do away with term limits), but that's not the same thing as taking irrelevant potshots at any candidate's ideological records.

Presidential candidates are rarely lying about what they repeatedly say they would like to do, and they have a lot of sway over the minute details of the regulatory apparatus. So I really don't think the differences are irrelevant.

You're quoting me and then talking to a straw man at this point.

You said that I'm ignoring carryover, and I disagreed and said that you're attaching too much importance to it.

If I've misunderstood you, make your point more explicitly and I'll do my best to respond in good faith. The one-line bromides don't actually make your point more apparent; especially when all you've added this time is to imply that you were not making the most obvious possible inference you could have been previously making.

[UED]

Must Sanders supporters always be cult like, annoying and self-righteous to anyone who doesn't worship to the church of Sanders awesomeness?

Many Sanders supporters, of course, aren't like that. And, granted, not all Clinton supporters are obnoxious either.

But their does seem to be a pattern, increasingly, of Clinton supporters treating Sanders' side as a whole not merely as opponents, but as a lunatic fringe group to be mocked and dismissed (even up to Bill's "joke" about us wanting to shoot a third of Wall Street and thinking that would solve everything), as well as a long term-tendency (literally since before the election started) of Clinton being regarded as inevitable. Their are times when I can just feel the indignation that uppity Bernie dared to actually challenge her. And I'm telling you now, that while I personally have nothing but contempt for Bernie or Bust and similar attitudes, acting as if Sanders supporters are an irrelevant fringe will come back to bite you in the general election. Its a dangerous attitude, and if you don't want the fascist as your president, or Cruz with his slash and burn approach to the budget, or some other, similar lunatic, the Clinton camp needs to act a little less entitled and arrogant.

I do believe the Clinton camp has been somewhat arrogant and acting self entitled, that said, the actions of many within the Sanders camp has disillusioned me. At first I was actually more Pro-Bernie than Pro-Clinton, but then I saw just how much hatred many Sander supporters held against Clinton. Yes Clinton supporters are dismissing Bernie's importance, but many Bernie supporters act as if Bernie Sanders is their lord and savior and the only competent candidate to have ever existed. Bernie himself isn't like that.

Bernie is representative of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole which should be resurrected from the horrible death it suffered during 1968-1988. Bernie is not on the fringe, not at all. However I feel as if Sanders supporters simply view Clinton supporters as stupid. I've seen arguments from Sanders supporters arguing that "black people don't know what's good for them" and how "Bernie has marched with King at Washington, therefore the black community should vote for him". While lopsided numbers favoring Clinton within the African American community confuses me, people are still entitled to support whoever they wish.

I do hope that you have seen just how Anti-Clinton Sanders supporters are. Across the internet (yes I know it's not the best example but the Internet community as a whole is strongly Pro-Bernie) I keep seeing Anti-Clinton comments mocking her and calling on her to drop out. Now I'm not going to whine that a few internet comments caused me to turn against the Bernie camp. It was instead the process of seeing anti-clinton comments from Bernie supporters for at 6-8 months straight that has driven me. On almost every political new feed featuring the Democratic race, I keep seeing comments post ranging from stuff such as "Elizabeth Warren is a coward for not supporting Bernie" to misleading info such as "Bernie Sanders has won more swing states than Hillary and therefore he is more qualified!" I know Clinton and the politicians fire back at Bernie, but you rarely see Clinton supporters actually attack Bernie due to A) Being outnumbered and B) they aren't as fired up.

That's my two cents
(Also swing states won by both sides)

(Clinton: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa.
Sanders Wisconsin, Minnestoa, New Hampshire and Colorado)

That said I will support any Democrat in this election.

[Kelinfort]

You know, if Bernie had done an ad blitz months ago and directly appealed to blacks in the South, he may be in the lead now. Going negative was a terrible move.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can see Sanders possibly taking California. He'll definitely get Pennsylvania in my opinion. The distribution of delegates (via proportional) will make it extremely difficult for him to catch up. That said, I do not say that Hillary is inevitable. I think contested convention stands a somewhat moderate chance of happening.

I'm not even guessing what happens in California, it's a big crazy state almost like three different states. But I think it will still be mathematically possible for Sanders to win when that last big day comes.

Meaning seven more weeks of Sander's supporters bridling at the very suggestion that the odds favor Clinton

Speaking for myself, I don't mind if people say that Clinton is likely to win. I've said it myself.

I don't even mind if people prefer Clinton as a candidate, though I have trouble understanding it.

Its the arrogant, smug dismissal of Sanders and his supporters I sometimes encounter that grates.

And yeah, California is not something I'm remotely prepared to predict this far out. And yes, considering its size, and everything else happening that day, then even leaving out delegates switching sides/superdelegate stuff, we probably won't know for sure until then.

[The Romulan Republic]

New York polls closing in 20 minutes, I believe.

[UED]

I'm not even guessing what happens in California, it's a big crazy state almost like three different states. But I think it will still be mathematically possible for Sanders to win when that last big day comes.

Meaning seven more weeks of Sander's supporters bridling at the very suggestion that the odds favor Clinton

Speaking for myself, I don't mind if people say that Clinton is likely to win. I've said it myself.

I don't even mind if people prefer Clinton as a candidate, though I have trouble understanding it.

Its the arrogant, smug dismissal of Sanders and his supporters I sometimes encounter that grates.

And yeah, California is not something I'm remotely prepared to predict this far out. And yes, considering its size, and everything else happening that day, then even leaving out delegates switching sides/superdelegate stuff, we probably won't know for sure until then.

Simple as to why people may prefer Clinton as a candidate
A) They are moderates who support some of the ideals of the Democratic Party but aren't progressives/very leftist liberals
B) Sanders is weaker on gun control than Clinton
C) Although they share similar positions, Clinton is more associated and more active in promoting reproductive rights.
D) More aggressive foreign policy democrats. More willing to use force than Sanders.
E) The reason that many Sanders supporters (not saying you) believe: Clinton supporters are idiots who have no idea about politics and vote for her simply because A) She's inevitable or B) She has name recognition. True to some extent but i highly doubt they are the majority.

Sanders supporters will vote for him based on my understanding because
A) More economically progressive/liberal than Clinton (Goldman Sachs, overturn Citizens United)
B) Honesty/Likeability: Funded by the people, for the people argument. It's not that Clinton doesn't get ordinary donations (Her war chest is like 40-60% supported by ordinary people), but Sanders really gives this charismatic feeling that he's a people's man. Not saying Clinton isn't, but Sanders is way better at it. Given Benghazi and Emails, he seems more (and is more) honest. He was rated 1st in honesty (2nd was Clinton) among all the candidates. He hasn't done anything particularly corrupt/shady.
C) More pacifist than Clinton. Admirable opposition to Iraq War is a major boast for Senator Sanders.
D) Less strict on gun control
E) The reason that many Clinton supporters (somewhat but not totally me) believe: Sanders supporters are voting against Clinton out of pure spite against her.

[Corrian]

You know, if Bernie had done an ad blitz months ago and directly appealed to blacks in the South, he may be in the lead now. Going negative was a terrible move.

Yeah, he should probably have tried harder for the South than he did. If he actually did solidly in the south, I think it'd be a lot closer right now, which would at least be interesting to see what happens.