hmm, I heard this before. ah yes! parliamentary elections in Germany!
when direct candidates have the same number of votes the winner is decided by drawing lots.
9 Likes
Iâll take naive and idealistic in a President that maybe canât get bills passed in a Republican Congress, but can direct the DOJ to focus on Wall Street corruption and other things directly within his influence over a cold politician who canât move against the wealthy because they funded her campaign and can affect her foundation.
10 Likes
No. Difference is 3.4 percentage points or 6.5%
1 Like
same here, and I would pinch my nose while doing it
There is that, fair enough. I am interested to see how other states play out. The non-white demographic especially.
[citation-needed] there are some potentially good reasons to prefer Clinton, youâve noted them. Iâve seen no evidence of this one, though - and plenty of polling to suggest the opposite. She doesnât seem to have the support of independents that you might expect from her more centrist position. I guess sheâs been around the national political scene for so long that everyone has long made up their opinion of her.
Even the most vehement Sanders supporter Iâve seen here, @cowicide, says heâll hold his nose and vote for Clinton in the general. The only people Iâve seen that say they wonât are people in solidly one-sided states where it doesnât make a damn bit of difference who they vote for.
I donât have a vote. But I would like to see an actual liberal in the general, not just a pragmatist centrist. Even if in terms of what they can get passed it doesnât make much difference. Itâs why Corbyn (whoâs a pretty hopeless political leader) won the UK Labour party election. Eventually people get fed up of having to choose the âpragmaticâ choice. Blair was better than the Conservative alternatives, but not by much if youâre really a liberal (or further left than that).
The Dems arenât really a liberal party, just the best that liberals can hope for in a 2 party system. Iâve read that actual self-identifying liberals are about 40% of the party.
7 Likes
Yes, because itâs The Face of a candidate that most clearly conveys their sense of entitlement, especially in one moment in time. I understand itâs a recommended method for determining oneâs sense of entitlement.
From the same evening, but just after hearing that Bill got the Kraft-branded âVelveeta Shells Dinnerâ, instead of Safewaysâ off-brand, âPasta with Cheesy Sauceâ:
Clintonâs missteps are her own, but to take a pouty-faced image and use that as a descriptor of her feelings about the night, the week, the election year, is silly. Weâve enough facts on hand to talk about the election without resorting to âOHH, SHEâS SO MAAAAAD!!â In addition, it smacks of Trumpâs comments regarding Fiorinaâs face, or really any of the comments heâs made about specific women.
8 Likes
Oh yeah, I bet a bunch of people on HRCâ staff got chewed out good this morning.
Why? The polls had Bernie within a percentage or two going into this⌠The only surprise is how accurate the polls were, thereâs a potential 8% swing with the IA caucus polling.
1 Like
No, we donât.
In the case of dead-heat ties, Iowa decides individual headcounts in its caucuses with coin tosses.
This isnât part of the election. This is the popularity campaign part to choose whoâll run as head of each party. Iowa runs a âcaucusâ, which doesnât even use ballots; people sit down in big auditoriums in groups, and they count heads. Itâs quaint and quirky and not very accurate, so flipping a coin isnât far off.
2 Likes
For the younger liberals who view Hillary with distaste: If she gets elected, youâll discover that the Republicans have been comparatively polite to Obama all these years. All those Obummer/Nazi/Commie/Muslin/Hawaiian pejoratives will look pretty tame when you see whatâs coming. Iâm pretty sure they started the President Hillary impeachment hearings last week.
Iâm more interested in seeing an ineffectual Sanders as President than an ineffectual Clinton, but the mind explosions would be entertaining to watch.
11 Likes
Thatâs a big worry, indeed. Obama had a nonstop series of roadblocks and insults â and in his case, they were pretty much all entirely invented. It must be really frustrating trying to impeach a guy with things you came up with on the back of your Tea Party legal pad. With Hillary, sheâd be going in with a silly, but concrete, âscandalâ or three for them to focus on right off the bat.
2 Likes
Which is where the weird key stone cops aspect of his campaign comes in. I have a real lack of confidence that he can maintain sufficient control of his own administration to avoid that. And thatâs assuming his byline of not knowing this sort of shit was going on or not meaning it that way is true. By his accounting a staffer of his took it on his own initiative to white hat commit a crime on his behalf. Other staffers, unbeknownst to him took it on themselves to kind of sort of infiltrate a labor union (but not really, wait really?) to push for an endorsement. And he and his campaign leadership were unaware and uninvolved. Totally. Or they were Illuminati plants, so it was totally the other guy! When that sort of shit happens in actual government, rather than campaigns its called corruption. And its not like he actually has much experience or history in actually leading or succeeding in anti-corruption campaigns. He spent the bulk of his political career jockeying for position within his own party, while occasionally tossing PR barbs at the opposition. Like I said not anymore confidence building that what Hillaryâs putting out there, but in a way less practical direction.
Here might be more sensible than the general population. It seems the reader base here is pretty politically engaged, and fairly well informed. At the very least because Boing Boing covers this stuff. But what I see on Facebook, and what I hear out in the world (like the barbershop the other day). Or even from close friends, sounds down right foolish. And across all age groups. Iâve seen aging hippies straight up yelling at people in public. Though I live in an area with a strong interest in Trump, so thatâs not actually all that odd.
My point is largely that whether an out and out liberal gets elected, or that pragmatic centrist does. What we get is a pragmatic centrist. We just watched exactly that happen to Obama. The situation that lead to all that obstruction and weird likely wonât change before 2020. And if you want to actively try to change it now a nebulous plan to âinspireâ that change isnât the way to do it. And you would have had to start before election season. Given weâre stuck with the status quo, the person whoâs already good at being a pragmatic centrist is probably the better choice to be a pragmatic centrist. I donât like it, it makes me sad, but thems the breaks. Bernie also doesnât appear to have a plan for what to do if he canât railroad his stuff through. Which actually deeply troubles me.
1 Like
In a very practical sense though, thatâs a fine enough distinction that it doesnât matter. If Sanders gets the nomination and Clinton doesnât, Clinton will not be president. Same for the inverse. Thatâs just how it works.
So yes, it is very possible that the flip of a coin, some bad counting, some intentionally bad counting, or some people getting up and walking out during the caucus, can affect the overall outcome of the election.
1 Like
In case anyone is interested, hereâs a serious examination of Iowa in terms of the Democratic primary:
3 Likes
The candid photo I posted was published on Twitter just after results came in showing that Sanders had tightened things up again to the point that there was less than 1% point between them. The photo you posted is Clinton in a posed photo op moment, making her victory speech, so of course I expect her to paste on a smile then. I think my photo is more reflective of her feelings about a vote she assumed sheâd win by a much wider margin. Do you really think sheâs pleased with a margin of error win?
None of this has anything to do with her being a woman. If someone had caught Trump on camera looking like he was sucking a lemon last night because he realised he came in second (i.e. was one of those Losers) and I supported Cruz or one of the other GOP clowns I would have posted it, too.
3 Likes
Iâm one of them - blue district, blue state. I vowed never to vote for Clinton again after 2003. Even so, Iâm encouraging Sanders supporters in swing states and districts to vote for her if sheâs the nominee, if only because of the SCOTUS appointments (although there are obviously lots of additional ways one of the GOP candidates could wreck the country). Most of them, including some very zealous ones, see the logic in that.
1 Like
The alternative is going to be Rubio, Cruz, or Trump. I donât think either Dem will actually have a problem getting the party vote out against them where it matters. But independents might swing against Clinton.
True. Iâm more concerned about what will happen in that regard if Sanders gets the nomination. I think Clintonâs rank and file supporters will, for the most part, behave rationally, too (Iâve seen no repeats of the âPUMAâ stupidity from 2008). However, I think Wasserman-Schultzâs DNC would give Sanders far less party support in the general election than it would to Clinton, even to the point of swallowing a loss to âshowâ the Dem rank and file that a progressive is âunelectableâ in the U.S.
2 Likes
Exactly what âshitâ has she made happen so far in her career??
Three years into Hillaryâs administration, when weâre in a couple more wars, and every Hollingsworth Hound who wrote checks for speaking fees and to the Clinton Foundation has called in his markers, are you going to claim you did not see it coming??
6 Likes
[quote=âAnthonyC, post:28, topic:73122â]
Question of procedure: if a candidate decides to leave the race, what happens to the delegates he has already won? [/quote]
Itâs complicated.
Different states have different rules, and party rules also have an effect. Generally, they come into play at the convention. I expect both this yearâs conventions to be real humdingers.
