The Tragic Death of the Democratic Party - Page 18 - Politics and Economics

As a cannuck can anyone explain to me if there is any good behind the super delegate system? It seems to messed up when before primaries even began Clinton had them all locked up.

Depends on whether you are part of the winning faction.

11-12-2016 , 10:04 PM

#427

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Minimize the chances of having George McGovern becoming the leader of your party.

Counterpoint: Hillary Clinton becomes the leader of your party.

11-12-2016 , 10:52 PM

#428

JoltinJake

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 5,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

It doesn't take a constitutional amendment to effectively nullify the electoral college. It technically could be done with just the biggest 13 or so states. They won't all agree to band together and ensure the popular vote winner is the EC winner, but they do have that power as granted by the constitution

For those interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact

165 EV have already agreed. Need 105 more. Unlikely to get it, though, unless there is a shift back toward democrats having an advantage in the electoral college.

11-12-2016 , 11:15 PM

#429

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

Counterpoint: Hillary Clinton becomes the leader of your party.

By winning 55% of the popular vote. Sanders didn't lose because of super delegates.

11-13-2016 , 12:24 AM

#430

Hired Goons2

adept

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 874

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Minimize the chances of having Trump becoming the leader of your party.

11-13-2016 , 12:41 AM

#431

Lapidator

LLSNL Frequent Flyer

Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 13,762

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

By winning 55% of the popular vote. Sanders didn't lose because of super delegates.

The writing was on the wall after Bernie took 49.59% of the vote in Iowa, but only 47.7% of the pledged delegates, and 41.2% of the total delegates, and he earned identically zero super-delegates. Amazingly, 14% of Iowa state delegates are super-delegates.

Then, a week later, Bernie won 60.14% of the popular vote in NH, and ended up with only 50% of the total state delegates. "Justice" prevailed, Bernie won the support of one of the eight super-delegates. Again though, amazingly, 25% of NH state delegates are super-delegates. Considering how the popular vote in NH went for Bernie, it seems that perhaps no level of popular support would have been sufficient to sway the minds of the super delegates.

This gave Bernie supporters some time to consider the level of the playing field.

Almost two weeks after NH, Bernie managed 47.29% popular support NV, but only managed 37.2% of the state delegates. The super-delegate shenanigans were tamped down... Bernie took 1 out of the 8 available. Super-delegates represent 18% of NV state delegates.

Its important to demoralize the loser as early in the contest as possible.

The psychological affects aside...

Given the pattern of 10-25% of delegates being super-delegates on a per-state basis, and 95+% of super-delegates going for Clinton, it seems that in order for Bernie to win the Democrat Primary in 2016, his popular support by the end of Super Tuesday would have needed to be over 75% to make up for the DNC's super-delegate machine.

In reality, Bernie had no chance.

~~~~

Now, consider for a moment the 2008 Democrat Primary. Hillary took 48% of the popular vote, to Obama's 47.3%.

Obama did to Hillary in 2008 what Hillary did to Bernie in 2016. Though Hillary was virtually tied in the popular vote in the early primary states, Obama took nearly all the super-delegates.

Hillary had no chance in 2008, and no amount of popular support would have changed that.

~~~~

Ultimately though, the Political Parties can run their parties any way they choose. Its up to the people to be knowledgeable of how the parties are run, and to decide whether they want to participate with or support them.

Last edited by Lapidator; 11-13-2016 at 12:46 AM.

11-13-2016 , 01:14 AM

#432

daca

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,499

Quote:

Originally Posted by awval999

My main aggravation is libtards projecting the current popular vote onto the current election. If the winner was decided that way the entire election would be different, specifically due to turnout. A liberal in Kansas may not vote because they know their vote doesn't matter. A conservative in California may not vote because they know their vote doesn't matter.

there's no more motivation for a conservative person in kanses or liberal in california to vote. additional votes in non-swing states would like break the same way as the rest if more people were motivated. clinton's lead would likely be bigger.

11-13-2016 , 06:51 AM

#433

beansroast01

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,494

CNN was showing Bernie down like 300-0 delegates before Iowa even voted. Yeah he def stood a fighting chance. AFAIK there's also wikileaks showing collusion with DNC to adjust the state voting schedule in the primary if she had a "strong competitor" back in 2015. Hillary crushing all those red states definitely helped her in the general election too, lmao.

We need a Game Theory Optimal party that elects nominee based on their performance in swing states and ignores or minimizes their performance in states that are mortal locks or certain losses (kidding... sorta)

Last edited by beansroast01; 11-13-2016 at 06:55 AM. Reason: I'm jacked up on coffee and my post probably doesn't make any sense but IDGAF

11-13-2016 , 10:10 AM

#434

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

found the problem, guys, it's cool, we got this

11-13-2016 , 10:20 AM

#435

Csaba

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,131

Quote:

Originally Posted by imjosh

We need a Game Theory Optimal party that elects nominee based on their performance in swing states and ignores or minimizes their performance in states that are mortal locks or certain losses (kidding... sorta)

How did Clinton fare Vs Sanders in the swing states?

11-13-2016 , 10:25 AM

#436

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

found the problem, guys, it's cool, we got this

11-13-2016 , 02:49 PM

#437

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapidator

Lol, Wyoming are "minorities". F those assclowns. Amirite?

Ha ha it's funny because liberals are supposed to care about minorities while Lapidator gives 0 ****s about actual voter suppression of real minorities or the fact that gerrymandering gives them significantly reduced political power compared to what they should have.

But what say you about the REAL downtrodden in society, the white rancher from Wyoming, huh libtards?

Quote:

Originally Posted by awval999

My main aggravation is libtards projecting the current popular vote onto the current election. If the winner was decided that way the entire election would be different, specifically due to turnout. ...A conservative in California may not vote because they know their vote doesn't matter.

Kinda owning yourself and showing the merits of a different system here.

Conservatives in CA ALREADY feel like their vote doesn't matter and might not show up. A national popular vote would mean it did. And the dude in Kansas' vote would matter just the same as the person from California.

11-13-2016 , 03:03 PM

#438

JoltinJake

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 5,236

Sounds like Keith Ellison is going to be the guy for the DNC. Now getting support from Reid and Schumer.

11-13-2016 , 03:44 PM

#439

daca

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,499

bigger, cheaper cities should be the democrat's #1 priority apparently

11-13-2016 , 04:02 PM

#440

sportsjefe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 13,693

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2016/11/13/...o-keep-losing/

Quote:

People don’t seem to understand this: you need to adapt and change and look outside of your tiny enclaves not out of some moral obligation, but because you are losing on every imaginable front. You don’t have to get in touch with the rest of the country because that’s the right thing to do. You have to get in touch with the rest of the country because they’re kicking your ass. (emphasis author's)

11-14-2016 , 01:29 AM

#441

amurophil

banned

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,972

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

found the problem, guys, it's cool, we got this

No idea how any of you are disagreeing with this. What exactly is incorrect in her assessment?

11-14-2016 , 01:44 AM

#442

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by amurophil

No idea how any of you are disagreeing with this. What exactly is incorrect in her assessment?

Lol, if liberals aren't in a bubble, then I clearly have no frame of reality.

11-14-2016 , 01:48 AM

#443

amurophil

banned

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,972

Quote:

Originally Posted by leavesofliberty

Lol, if liberals aren't in a bubble, then I clearly have no frame of reality.

did you even read the article?

11-14-2016 , 02:53 AM

#444

sportsjefe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 13,693

The article is good, the headline does it no favors.

11-14-2016 , 03:17 AM

#445

amurophil

banned

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,972

its problem

11-14-2016 , 03:30 AM

#446

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by amurophil

No idea how any of you are disagreeing with this. What exactly is incorrect in her assessment?

Yes, it neglects why people actually voted. They weighed between electing the first female candidate, which is basically the issue HRC ran on, and Trump who talked about jobs and making America great again.

It's the economy stupid. Trumps ideas aren't great but he stayed on message. Hillary hardly found the time to utter the word jobs, concentrating instead on single stories, and victims of non-progressive culture.

add: It should have been clear in the campaign to focus on jobs, but liberals are in a bubble that it's the non-progressive culture that's #1, break the glass ceiling, etc. HRC was kind'a *yawn*.

11-14-2016 , 03:37 AM

#447

amurophil

banned

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,972

Quote:

Originally Posted by leavesofliberty

The article isn't addressing the motivations of the voters... but thanks for wasting a minute of my time with your pointless post

11-14-2016 , 04:21 AM

#448

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Quote:

Originally Posted by leavesofliberty

Hillary mentioned jobs a lot. You may have missed it being in your bubble of denial though. She was the one with actual plans, not "we'll have so many jobs, the best jobs!" and other assorted meaningless catch phrases.

11-14-2016 , 04:35 AM

#449

Falken

journeyman

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 318

Best article I seen on why Trump won the presidency http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/11/23174/

Most relevant part:

Quote:

The Rust Belt states that delivered the presidency to Trump—Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan—were extremely close. On one hand this means that any number of factors can be said to be a “cause” for the outcome. Slightly lower black turnout, third-party candidates, and depressed Democratic turnout generally will all be cited as such factors. But none of that addresses the fact that to shift Michigan, say, from +10 for Obama to even cannot be explained by these factors. You still have to account for people who voted for Trump, many of which probably flipped from being Obama voters. Digging deeper into county results supports this.

Take Macomb County and Oakland County in Michigan. Macomb County is mostly white and has a median household income of around $53,000. It is not particularly poor, but also not affluent. It is often characterized as “working class” and “socially conservative”. The county voted enthusiastically for Kennedy in 1960, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984. It voted for Obama twice (+9 in 2008, +4 in 2012). Trump won Macomb by nine points. The number of voters was the same. Trump peeled off white working-class votes. In contrast, we have neighboring Oakland County, which is considerably more affluent (median income of $66,000), has a university, and has more of a New Economy, advanced manufacturing economic base. It is more diverse as well. It is a traditionally conservative suburban community that has been drifting Democratic since 1996. Obama was the first presidential candidate to win a majority in the county since 1988. There, turnout for both candidates was down a bit, but the difference remained the exact same. Oakland was +8 Democrat in 2012 and +8 in 2016. Democratic support remained roughly the same in the more affluent, diverse, and educated county while shifting significantly in the traditionally working class community.

Or take Mahoning and Ashtabula Counties in Ohio. Mahoning is the Rustiest part of the Rust Belt, once at the heart of American steel production. The city was unionized, multiracial, and solidly Democratic. It was also ravaged by deindustrialization. As writer Sean Posey points out, it was long represented in Congress by Jim Traficant, a proto-Trump who railed against the free trade policies until he ended up in jail on corruption charges (which had little impact on his popularity). The county is economically poor (median household income of $23,000) and culturally as working class as it gets. It has been solidly Democrat in presidential elections for decades. Obama won the county decisively (+26 in 2008, +28 in 2012) and the county contributed much to his statewide majority. Hillary Clinton won Mahoning by three points. Ashtabula, by contrast, is overwhelmingly white, more exurban, and more affluent than Mahoning, but with average household incomes considerably lower than the national average ($40,000 median family income). It has none of the knowledge economy trappings of Oakland County. People there once worked in auto plants and now work in hospitals. It has been solidly Democratic in presidential contests since 1988. Ashtabula decisively supported Obama in 2012 (+13) and decisively supported Trump in 2016 (+19).