[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Alouite]

Some of the polling is old. I'll check the link and let you know when that one came out.

It's also kinda...weird. 55 Hillary, 20 something Bernie. There's an awful lot of percentage in there not accounted for.

True. That's part of what made me think it was old. After all, before they would be taking the other candidates who hadn't dropped into account and that might explain the missing data.

[Eol Sha]

Some of the polling is old. I'll check the link and let you know when that one came out.

It's also kinda...weird. 55 Hillary, 20 something Bernie. There's an awful lot of percentage in there not accounted for.

Not really. The poll is from back in November.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5229.html

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Nevada requires a photo ID in order for someone to be allowed to vote. You can't just walk in and grab a ballot.

Also, Nevada doesn't have same-day registration.

That's general election.

http://action.nvdems.com/page/content/caucus_faq/

Who can participate in the caucus?
Any person who is eligible to vote in the state of Nevada and will be at least 18 years old on Election Day, November 8, 2016, may participate. You must reside in the precinct in which they wish to participate, and must be registered as a Democrat — you may register or change party affiliation on caucus day.

(democratic)

[Eol Sha]

Nevada requires a photo ID in order for someone to be allowed to vote. You can't just walk in and grab a ballot.

Well this is evidence of it...

No, it isn't. I couldn't tell what was going on. Not to mention you almost certainly need more than just this to prove voter fraud in a court action.

[Eol Sha]

Also, Nevada doesn't have same-day registration.

That's general election.

http://action.nvdems.com/page/content/caucus_faq/

Who can participate in the caucus?
Any person who is eligible to vote in the state of Nevada and will be at least 18 years old on Election Day, November 8, 2016, may participate. You must reside in the precinct in which they wish to participate, and must be registered as a Democrat — you may register or change party affiliation on caucus day.

(democratic)

I stand corrected.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

To add:

Double primary voting is possible....

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art ... e-for-dems

via a timing loophole - GOP registrations were due feb. 13th and are already checked, Dems allow same day registration, you can register and vote dem and your GOP registration is still valid because it was checked prior to you registering Dem.

[Corrian]

Ah, I would say November polls mean jack shit at this point. Bernie has surged a lot since then.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

That's general election.

http://action.nvdems.com/page/content/caucus_faq/



(democratic)

I stand corrected.

Now worries, the legal guidelines, policy, procedure, and so much more vary so much between GOP, Dems, and the General election that we all get mixed up sometimes

[Alouite]

Well this is evidence of it...

No, it isn't. I couldn't tell what was going on. Not to mention you almost certainly need more than just this to prove voter fraud in a court action.

That's what I said. Please read my posts before assuming otherwise about my intentions. I just wanted this to be looked into more based on the fact that people voted without registering and that that was evidence of multiple instances of voter fraud, therefore, it should be ensured that this was a limited skew in the data and not more widespread.

[The Lone Alliance]

SNIP

I've been saying that for ages Myrensis, what do you think the media's obsession with the "War on Women" was about?

Media plays favorites, that's always very obvious.

Of course doesn't help that Identity politics is a huge attention grabber.

[Eol Sha]

No, it isn't. I couldn't tell what was going on. Not to mention you almost certainly need more than just this to prove voter fraud in a court action.

That's what I said. Please read my posts before assuming otherwise about my intentions. I just wanted this to be looked into more based on the fact that people voted without registering and that that was evidence of multiple instances of voter fraud, therefore, it should be ensured that this was a limited skew in the data and not more widespread.

I'm skeptical. How do we know there weren't other places to register? I understand the concern, but even if there was a little fraud here and there, I doubt there was enough to ensure a five or six point swing in the caucus results.

[Alouite]

That's what I said. Please read my posts before assuming otherwise about my intentions. I just wanted this to be looked into more based on the fact that people voted without registering and that that was evidence of multiple instances of voter fraud, therefore, it should be ensured that this was a limited skew in the data and not more widespread.

I'm skeptical. How do we know there weren't other places to register? I understand the concern, but even if there was a little fraud here and there, I doubt there was enough to ensure a five or six point swing in the caucus results.

I agree, and share some of your skepticism. But it still should be investigated.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

That's what I said. Please read my posts before assuming otherwise about my intentions. I just wanted this to be looked into more based on the fact that people voted without registering and that that was evidence of multiple instances of voter fraud, therefore, it should be ensured that this was a limited skew in the data and not more widespread.

I'm skeptical. How do we know there weren't other places to register? I understand the concern, but even if there was a little fraud here and there, I doubt there was enough to ensure a five or six point swing in the caucus results.

I'm with you there. The entirety of the dirty tactics far more prevalent in Clinton's campaign than Sanders', perhaps, but a few examples of rules not being followed in her favor (the article has been linked a few times, but here it is again - http://usuncut.com/politics/the-nevada- ... te-fiasco/ ) alone shouldn't make 4%ish difference.

[Trumpostan]

Wait, Colorado is a heavily Hillary state? What? That honestly surprises me. I was thinking Colorado might go Bernie

Booo

Some of the polling is old. I'll check the link and let you know when that one came out.

Some of it is a few months old. Some states there seems to be very little polling, whereas in others there is heavy polling. The trend seems to be that Bernie gains in most states, but not by nearly enough for Super Tuesday.

[The Lone Alliance]

I'm skeptical. How do we know there weren't other places to register? I understand the concern, but even if there was a little fraud here and there, I doubt there was enough to ensure a five or six point swing in the caucus results.

This really, that type of fraud wouldn't be able to tilt the vote that much.

[Terminus Alpha]

I'm gonna be early voting for Bernie soon. Hopefully he can win SC, but he has 70~ delegate votes to Hillary's 502(!), so it's gonna be a long road still.

[Mike the Progressive]

So happy Hillary won!

[Faustian Fantasies]

So happy Hillary won!

Congratulations.

But we're not out yet.

[John King]

I'm gonna be early voting for Bernie soon. Hopefully he can win SC, but he has 70~ delegate votes to Hillary's 502(!), so it's gonna be a long road still.

As I stated earlier, that number should be much closer. However, the superdelegates have overwhelmingly sided with Hillary Clinton, thus giving her an astronomical lead in the delegate count.

With the superdelegates though, I believe that she is very well on track to clinch the nomination. Although, Sanders did take New Hampshire, and I believe that he will most surely win his home state of Vermont, and he may take Massachusetts too. According to state-by-state polls, he is running well in North Eastern states and will have his best chances to keep the delegate count close from this region of the country. It'll be hard to see him compete in SEC, much less win. But I guess we won't really know until Super Tuesday arrives.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm gonna be early voting for Bernie soon. Hopefully he can win SC, but he has 70~ delegate votes to Hillary's 502(!), so it's gonna be a long road still.

The time to pay any attention to superdelegate "counts" is not really right now. Not unless you're working for one of the two campaigns.

Superdelegates are fickle. A number of superdelegates who have not committed are likely to commit to a candidate who wins a narrow but clear majority of pledged delegates and votes, in order to avoid a major meltdown by angry Democrats.

IMO, the news media are fucking things up royally by reporting as a top-line result a count that includes unpledged superdelegates' non-binding promises. The count of delegates actually won - who can't just conveniently change their mind later on - is 51 to 51, with one more NV delegate to be added to those pledged totals. (Not clear whether that will go to Sanders yet.)

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm gonna be early voting for Bernie soon. Hopefully he can win SC, but he has 70~ delegate votes to Hillary's 502(!), so it's gonna be a long road still.

As I stated earlier, that number should be much closer. However, the superdelegates have overwhelmingly sided with Hillary Clinton, thus giving her an astronomical lead in the delegate count.

With the superdelegates though, I believe that she is very well on track to clinch the nomination. Although, Sanders did take New Hampshire, and I believe that he will most surely win his home state of Vermont, and he may take Massachusetts too. According to state-by-state polls, he is running well in North Eastern states and will have his best chances to keep the delegate count close from this region of the country. It'll be hard to see him compete in SEC, much less win. But I guess we won't really know until Super Tuesday arrives.

I don't think there are many superdelegates who aren't aware that if the race is decided by superdelegates over a clear majority of pledged delegates, there will be hell to pay in the general election.

Or a hell toupee, depending on how the Republican primary turns out.

[John King]

As I stated earlier, that number should be much closer. However, the superdelegates have overwhelmingly sided with Hillary Clinton, thus giving her an astronomical lead in the delegate count.

With the superdelegates though, I believe that she is very well on track to clinch the nomination. Although, Sanders did take New Hampshire, and I believe that he will most surely win his home state of Vermont, and he may take Massachusetts too. According to state-by-state polls, he is running well in North Eastern states and will have his best chances to keep the delegate count close from this region of the country. It'll be hard to see him compete in SEC, much less win. But I guess we won't really know until Super Tuesday arrives.

I don't think there are many superdelegates who aren't aware that if the race is decided by superdelegates over a clear majority of pledged delegates, there will be hell to pay in the general election.

Or a hell toupee, depending on how the Republican primary turns out.

Heh, very true. And if that were to happen, alongside a hypothetical brokered convention on the Republican side. What's next?

For once, I have no idea whatsoever.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I don't think there are many superdelegates who aren't aware that if the race is decided by superdelegates over a clear majority of pledged delegates, there will be hell to pay in the general election.

Or a hell toupee, depending on how the Republican primary turns out.

Heh, very true. And if that were to happen, alongside a hypothetical brokered convention on the Republican side. What's next?

For once, I have no idea whatsoever.

Honestly, if the result of a superdelegate-won Dem primary and GOP brokered convention was still a Clinton v. Trump race, I'd almost want Trump to win to add insult to injury on the already-evidently-broken system, so that when he fucks up big we can look back on the whole process and seriously say, as a nation, "maybe some things need fixing."

[Farnhamia]

Heh, very true. And if that were to happen, alongside a hypothetical brokered convention on the Republican side. What's next?

For once, I have no idea whatsoever.

Honestly, if the result of a superdelegate-won Dem primary and GOP brokered convention was still a Clinton v. Trump race, I'd almost want Trump to win to add insult to injury on the already-evidently-broken system, so that when he fucks up big we can look back on the whole process and seriously say, as a nation, "maybe some things need fixing."

Fixing the presidential election system requires amending the Constitution and that requires a very large movement throughout the nation so that Congress or a super-majority of the states call for it. The party primary systems can only be changed from within the parties. I don't believe Congress or the state legislatures can do more than set guidelines and dates.

[Kelinfort]

Heh, very true. And if that were to happen, alongside a hypothetical brokered convention on the Republican side. What's next?

For once, I have no idea whatsoever.

Honestly, if the result of a superdelegate-won Dem primary and GOP brokered convention was still a Clinton v. Trump race, I'd almost want Trump to win to add insult to injury on the already-evidently-broken system, so that when he fucks up big we can look back on the whole process and seriously say, as a nation, "maybe some things need fixing."

Have you ever read Fear, Loathing, and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail?