[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread

[Rebellious Fishermen]

I'm a Rep but if I had to pick one of those four I choose Hillary.

[Wallenburg]

The US geographically speaking is more red than blue, but because the electoral college rewards the most populous states and all of the liberals are crammed into the west coast, northwest, and northeastern states, none of that matters. California can be red as can be but because its major cities have larger populations and these locations all vote Democratic, this is enough to turn the whole state blue.

I was so impressed with the 2010 elections. The Democratic voters weren't paying attention while the Republican voters were super pissed off and turned out in droves. This is an example of an election having the most ideal conditions for my side.

I hate the electoral college too, but I don't understand your distaste for having equal representation in government for each person. Land doesn't vote. People do.

[Ngelmish]

The US geographically speaking is more red than blue, but because the electoral college rewards the most populous states and all of the liberals are crammed into the west coast, northwest, and northeastern states, none of that matters. California can be red as can be but because its major cities have larger populations and these locations all vote Democratic, this is enough to turn the whole state blue.

I was so impressed with the 2010 elections. The Democratic voters weren't paying attention while the Republican voters were super pissed off and turned out in droves. This is an example of an election having the most ideal conditions for my side.

Only if by geographically speaking you mean sparsely populated rural communities. In terms of an urban/rural breakdown there are more blue voters, and yes, they are more highly concentrated. Pluralities are still majorities when it comes to non 100% scenarios.

[Arkinesia]

I'll go whole hog in the other direction. I support interracial coupling because it diversifies the human gene pool, making us genetically and evolutionarily stronger than we already are. Ergo I am forced to oppose racial nationalism of any kind. It stands in the way of human improvement and progress. It is both a moral and rational obligation in my estimation.

I don't really believe this because aren't geneticists always whining about how there is supposedly more genetic diversity within racial groups than between different racial groups? Just to be clear, are you opposed to same race coupling in general, or just open to miscegenation happening? Donald Trump is getting all of the White nationalist vote and while this isn't enough to win an election, the extra help from a segment which isn't normally politically active might just be enough to keep him on top and enable him to win the GOP nomination.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... -movement/

Opposing same-race coupling is just another brand of eugenics, so no, I don't feel that way. I mean, I would encourage interracial coupling where possible, but I'm not gonna force it on anyone.

Firstly, on your statement about statement about the racial demographics of the Democratic Party, you are misinformed. While the Democratic Party is far more diverse than the Republican Party, the majority of its turnout is still Caucasian.

On the national level, you're not wrong, but it's irrelevant, because it's not about the national level. It's about a state-by-state level. Go look at the Democratic primary electorate in states like California, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida, and you'll quickly realize that Bernie pulling 8% of the black vote and less than 5% of the Hispanic vote in these states is poison to his campaign. He already has a 30-point disadvantage when you factor in superdelegates. He can't just win, he has to literally blow out Hillary in every stage of the game.

[The NWO Rebel State]

I'm a Rep but if I had to pick one of those four I choose Hillary.

Noooooooooo please I don't want to live in oblivion for 4 years

[Kelinfort]

The US geographically speaking is more red than blue, but because the electoral college rewards the most populous states and all of the liberals are crammed into the west coast, northwest, and northeastern states, none of that matters. California can be red as can be but because its major cities have larger populations and these locations all vote Democratic, this is enough to turn the whole state blue.

I was so impressed with the 2010 elections. The Democratic voters weren't paying attention while the Republican voters were super pissed off and turned out in droves. This is an example of an election having the most ideal conditions for my side.

"California would be red if we ignored the popular vote and did voting based on counties"

[Khadgar]

The US geographically speaking is more red than blue, but because the electoral college rewards the most populous states and all of the liberals are crammed into the west coast, northwest, and northeastern states, none of that matters. California can be red as can be but because its major cities have larger populations and these locations all vote Democratic, this is enough to turn the whole state blue.

I was so impressed with the 2010 elections. The Democratic voters weren't paying attention while the Republican voters were super pissed off and turned out in droves. This is an example of an election having the most ideal conditions for my side.

"California would be red if we ignored the popular vote and did voting based on counties"

If only we made it so that only land owners could vote. That'd make things right.

[Ashmoria]

"California would be red if we ignored the popular vote and did voting based on counties"

If only we made it so that only land owners could vote. That'd make things right.

If we'd declare people with Spanish surnames to be 3/5th of a person...

[Lost heros]

The US geographically speaking is more red than blue, but because the electoral college rewards the most populous states and all of the liberals are crammed into the west coast, northwest, and northeastern states, none of that matters. California can be red as can be but because its major cities have larger populations and these locations all vote Democratic, this is enough to turn the whole state blue.

I was so impressed with the 2010 elections. The Democratic voters weren't paying attention while the Republican voters were super pissed off and turned out in droves. This is an example of an election having the most ideal conditions for my side.

Actually, the electoral college supports less populous states.
If a state with 1 million voters has 3 electoral votes and a state with 6 million voters had 11 electoral votes (Montana and Nevada respectively), then each voter has more electoral votes in Montana than they do in Arizona (3/1,000,000 versus 11/6,000,000). Individually Montana voters have almost twice the power of Arizona voters.

Then again I don't think you really care about what's wrong with the electoral college, and actually just want Republicans in office regardless of votes.

[The Klishi Islands]

The US geographically speaking is more red than blue, but because the electoral college rewards the most populous states and all of the liberals are crammed into the west coast, northwest, and northeastern states, none of that matters. California can be red as can be but because its major cities have larger populations and these locations all vote Democratic, this is enough to turn the whole state blue.

I was so impressed with the 2010 elections. The Democratic voters weren't paying attention while the Republican voters were super pissed off and turned out in droves. This is an example of an election having the most ideal conditions for my side.

The hell? The electoral college favors small states,mathematucally speaking. Give that a watch, CGP Grey is glorious.
And yes, the reason we don't go with whatever color is most prevalent on a map is because so many counties are so tiny in population, whereas urban counties of the same or even much smaller geographic size are huge in population. And the popular vote is what matters.

[The Petrias]

That was proven immediately false when I investigated one of the names, just a single random one, and found out he didn't have any education in economics, nor did his degree or professorship have any relevance to the minimum wage let alone wall street reform.

Which one?

Yes, I would also like to know to which economist you are referring. Also, this is a poor attempt to discredit my sources considering you haven't even talked about the other 209 economists.

[Northern Davincia]

If only we made it so that only land owners could vote. That'd make things right.

If we'd declare people with Spanish surnames to be 3/5th of a person...

And then enacted a Supreme Court decision that required every True American™ to deport them.

[MERIZoC]

The US geographically speaking is more red than blue, but because the electoral college rewards the most populous states and all of the liberals are crammed into the west coast, northwest, and northeastern states, none of that matters. California can be red as can be but because its major cities have larger populations and these locations all vote Democratic, this is enough to turn the whole state blue.

I was so impressed with the 2010 elections. The Democratic voters weren't paying attention while the Republican voters were super pissed off and turned out in droves. This is an example of an election having the most ideal conditions for my side.

Actually, the electoral college supports less populous states.
If a state with 1 million voters has 3 electoral votes and a state with 6 million voters had 11 electoral votes (Montana and Nevada respectively), then each voter has more electoral votes in Montana than they do in Arizona (3/1,000,000 versus 11/6,000,000). Individually Montana voters have almost twice the power of Arizona voters.

Then again I don't think you really care about what's wrong with the electoral college, and actually just want Republicans in office regardless of votes.

Hey, if he supports abolishing the electoral college, I don't care how misinformed he is, by all means...

[New West Guiana]

I was so impressed with the 2010 elections. The Democratic voters weren't paying attention

No Democrats simply don't vote during the mid-term elections in 2014 only about 15% of Democrats voted compare that to Presidential elections that number skyrockets to over 40%.

[Saiwania]

No Democrats simply don't vote during the mid-term elections in 2014 only about 15% of Democrats voted compare that to Presidential elections that number skyrockets to over 40%.

Why? If there is some secret which exists that will bring Democratic party turnout to 15% or lower instead of 40%+, that is what every Republican wants to figure out.

[Khadgar]

No Democrats simply don't vote during the mid-term elections in 2014 only about 15% of Democrats voted compare that to Presidential elections that number skyrockets to over 40%.

Why? If there is some secret which exists that will bring Democratic party turnout to 15% or lower instead of 40%+, that is what every Republican wants to figure out.

Dontgiveafuckitis.

[Lost heros]

No Democrats simply don't vote during the mid-term elections in 2014 only about 15% of Democrats voted compare that to Presidential elections that number skyrockets to over 40%.

Why? If there is some secret which exists that will bring Democratic party turnout to 15% or lower instead of 40%+, that is what every Republican wants to figure out.

Generally the goal of democracy is higher voter turn out.

[Khadgar]

Why? If there is some secret which exists that will bring Democratic party turnout to 15% or lower instead of 40%+, that is what every Republican wants to figure out.

:meh: Generally the goal of democracy is higher voter turn out.

The RNC is all about voter suppression. They don't want a high turn out because a majority of Americans fucking hate their platform.

[Geilinor]

I hate the electoral college too, but I don't understand your distaste for having equal representation in government for each person. Land doesn't vote. People do.

He's the type of guy who has no problem rigging the vote to win.

[Rebellious Fishermen]

I'm a Rep but if I had to pick one of those four I choose Hillary.

Noooooooooo please I don't want to live in oblivion for 4 years

And I don't want a socialist who promises free everything but will bankrupt the country.

[Wallenburg]

Noooooooooo please I don't want to live in oblivion for 4 years

And I don't want a socialist who promises free everything but will bankrupt the country.

1) he is far from socialist
2) he doesn't offer "free everything"

[Rebellious Fishermen]

And I don't want a socialist who promises free everything but will bankrupt the country.

1) he is far from socialist
2) he doesn't offer "free everything"

He literally self-describes as a socialist. I watched the debates.

He advocates free education, free healthcare, increased welfare so that no one has to work to live a healthy life, etc. So yes, from my perspective that is synonymous with free everything.

[Khadgar]

1) he is far from socialist
2) he doesn't offer "free everything"

He literally self-describes as a socialist. I watched the debates.

He advocates free education, free healthcare, increased welfare so that no one has to work to live a healthy life, etc. So yes, from my perspective that is synonymous with free everything.

Your perspective is stupid then.

[Geilinor]

1) he is far from socialist
2) he doesn't offer "free everything"

He literally self-describes as a socialist. I watched the debates.

He advocates free education, free healthcare, increased welfare so that no one has to work to live a healthy life, etc. So yes, from my perspective that is synonymous with free everything.

Sanders doesn't believe that no one has to work. That's dishonest and I have no response to lies.

[Rebellious Fishermen]

He literally self-describes as a socialist. I watched the debates.

He advocates free education, free healthcare, increased welfare so that no one has to work to live a healthy life, etc. So yes, from my perspective that is synonymous with free everything.

Your perspective is stupid then.

Wow. I see you are quite immature and clearly not interested in a serious discussion.