US Presidential Race

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ted-cruz-jerk-hated

This is such an amazing article

I have to say, Cuomo taking Obama's words and then saying "sounds like an endorsement, doesn't it?" was complete BS. He's a moderator...unless Obama came out and endorsed him, you shouldn't be putting out speculative comments like that.

Especially considering the things Biden has said about Sanders that were never mentioned.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/01/12/Biden-Comes-Close-Endorsing-Bernie-Sanders

Why didn't we hear these quotes with "sounds an awful like an endorsement, doesn't it?". I'm glad we didn't because it is not his place to say those things, and in the same vein it's not his place to say what he said to Hillary.

I'm not looking for conspiracy theories and yes there are questions marks over some of this, but I'm not very interested in all of that. However, I thought Cuomo's comment was out of line for a moderator, especially if it's not going both ways.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ted-cruz-jerk-hated

This is such an amazing article

Ouch....some scorchers in that one...especially from the former classmates

Don't know the man personally obviously, but I don't think there's a more unlikable public figure out there right now.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:


Meh these are just labels.

It's like when you asked Americans in a poll about Obama's health care reform, they were against it if it was phrased as "government option", and for it if it was called "public option".

So how exactly could this be rephrased?

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/i6qkgblnbeik8xzzpucirq.png&imgrefurl=http://www.gallup.com/poll/183386/social-ideology-left-catches-right.aspx&h=318&w=504&tbnid=06D0ErjGQcvfvM:&docid=Cs1UzbUMIvvI9M&hl=en-gb&ei=DsikVrbfFIarU9amrugB&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0ahUKEwi2nvPsvcLKAhWG1RQKHVaTCx0QMwgcKAAwAA

It's all PR and messaging.

Or are you really going to tell me that Bush Jr's time in office actually was 'economically conservative', or even better, 'fiscally conservative' lol?

Everyone claims to be a 'fiscal conservative' in the US, that's etiquette.
Just like noone would ever NOT 'support the troops'.

In the end, in reality these are the guys who ruin the budget with uncovered, immensely wasteful military spending infused with cronyism (Cheney and Halliburton etc), while sending soldiers to death in a conflict that has no upside whatsoever, except for aforementioned cronies.

You don't see accountability for that. Accountability being another 'conservative' buzzword.

These people continue to go around and claim to be conservative, small government, what have you.

Polls like this mean *bleep* all in actual policy substance.

Whatever is thought of the current establishment (I've seen plenty conservatives bemoaning crony capitalism) it doesn't change the fact that lots and lots of Americans have an aversion to:
-Positive Liberty
-Equality

They do not share sanders's concept of fairness as equality, they think of fairness as proportionality. And they do not think of Liberty as positive Liberty (Robbing hard workers and meddling with peoples' lives -like desegregation busing- to achieve a bastardised form of fairness, ie "equality")

Lmao

Hans it wasn't government vs public. It was obamacare vs affordable care act. And it wasn't so much phrasing as Americans not knowing what ACA is (because no one calls it that) and having a good name.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Hans it wasn't government vs public. It was obamacare vs affordable care act. And it wasn't so much phrasing as Americans not knowing what ACA is (because no one calls it that) and having a good name.

That's what I was refering to.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/public-support-for-public-option/

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/a_public_option_by_any_other_n.php

http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2010/12/09/leaked-email-fox-boss-caught-slanting-news-repo/174090

Welp. I think its over. Hilary extends her lead.

?? They'll get roughly the same number of delegates. It's a tie, essentially. The media will spin it a different way but it's essentially a tie.

Ridiculous from Sanders, well done. Having not been blown out in Iowa he'll likely win New Hampshire and take a delegate lead.

Definitely a win for Bernie tonight. Yes actually winning would have been a bigger statement, but this isn't very much less of a statement. Hillary not being able to beat out a self professed socialist in a primary and that's with O'Malley likely siphoning off Bernie votes before promptly dropping out.

Don't expect him to continue on and making this a real run in the long run but the fact that he's even gotten to this stage is very, very impressive.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/43sexj/cspan_stream_clinton_precinct_chair_lied_about/

I mean "this is over" as Sanders is not winning Iowa. At one point, it really looked like he would pull it of. You are right that such a close margin in Iowa is freakin huge for him.

Did it look that way? From what I saw, he never lead at any one point. But I wasn't keeping updated very closely until the end

Looks like it'll come down to South Carolina for Clinton and Sanders. Clinton takes Iowa while Sanders takes New Hampshire. South Carolina is a stronghold for the black vote so whoever has resonated best with them should be well positioned to win it. I personally see Clinton winning that.

Always a chance Cruz would pip Trump to Iowa. The more the media hypes Trump, the more fuel and support they give to Cruz, who is anti-establishment, which also includes the mainstream media. This showed last night.

Just Iowa being Iowa.

CBarca wrote:Did it look that way? From what I saw, he never lead at any one point. But I wasn't keeping updated very closely until the end

Clinton had a 5% lead or so after 1/3 of the votes were counted and Sanders just got closer almost every time they updated the numbers. I think when the difference got lower than 1% and even to 0.2% with still 20% to be counted people really started to believe he could pull it off even though he never actually took the lead (was leading the delegates tbf).

McLewis wrote:Yeah we aren't electing him

Ron Paul has a better chance than that nutjob does.

It's just Iowa but still ...

The fact that majority of conservatives voted for him scares me, guy is basically a theocrat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/12135394/iowa-caucus-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-coin-toss.html

Excuse me i'm not familiar with the rules but deciding such a important issue with a coin toss looks like a joke to me. and the funny things is Hillary won in all six times, she might be just lucky but still looks very suspicious.

Had Hillarys ground game not been so impressive or has she not learned from the mistakes she made in 08, this would have been a blow out and Sanders would have won.

Not winning Iowa though regardless of how close it was makes me feel like this primary is already over. Sanders needed to sweep the rural mostly white states in order to have a shot. He outspent Hillary by quite a lot in Iowa and banked his chances of winning this primary by trying to win the first two states and hoping the momentum would carry him. As this goes on his resources will continue to be spread out and will face states with demographics that continue to work against him. He won't be able to outspend her really anywhere else. He'll win Vermont and New Hampshire but after losing Iowa I think it's going to be incredibly hard for him to win anywhere else besides that.

The 1% screwing Sanders again, SMH.

The coin toss thing is a non issue. Those aren't for the state delegates who actually matter. If it was an issue, it wouldn't have been solved through a coin toss. Hillary winning all of them is pretty funny though. Bernie can't catch a break lmao

And when you look at actual delegates awarded, Hillary edges Bernie by one, which is fair since she had slightly more % of the vote.

The whole American voting system is f'ed up. It's really no secret. No idea why every vote doesn't count. This whole winner takes all stuff is plain retarded. It even resulted in Bush winning despite getting the fewest number of votes. After that incident, there should've been people wanting it changed.

Don't know if it's like this outside of the presidential election though.

Freeza wrote:The whole American voting system is f'ed up. It's really no secret. No idea why every vote doesn't count. This whole winner takes all stuff is plain retarded. It even resulted in Bush winning despite getting the fewest number of votes. After that incident, there should've been people wanting it changed.

Don't know if it's like this outside of the presidential election though.

In regards to the electoral system, it's that way because we are such a large and economically diverse country we have ways to protect and give power to minority opinions and balancing acts to give more weight to low population states. If elections were all decided by popular votes, candidates would only need to go to New York, California and Texas, etc. the electoral system protects the interests of low population states and their needs.

But in regards to the caucusing thing they do on the democratic primary side in Iowa, it's a load of hogwash really.

VendettaRed07 wrote:

Freeza wrote:The whole American voting system is f'ed up. It's really no secret. No idea why every vote doesn't count. This whole winner takes all stuff is plain retarded. It even resulted in Bush winning despite getting the fewest number of votes. After that incident, there should've been people wanting it changed.

Don't know if it's like this outside of the presidential election though.

In regards to the electoral system, it's that way because we are such a large and economically diverse country we have ways to protect and give power to minority opinions and balancing acts to give more weight to low population states. If elections were all decided by popular votes, candidates would only need to go to New York, California and Texas, etc. the electoral system protects the interests of low population states and their needs.

But in regards to the caucusing thing they do on the democratic primary side in Iowa, it's a load of hogwash really.

Isn't the number of delegates relative to each state anyways? It's stupid all around and not democratic. To even have the option that you can have a guy getting a lesser amount of votes and still win is not democratic in any way at all. Can't see how you can even debate that. Each vote should mean something, which it doesn't when delegates from losing parties aren't accounted for, basically making all votes for the losing party a waste.

Reading about how this delegate system works is kind of enraging. Maybe someone should invade America and bring them democracy and freedom?

Coin tosses

This is the end of Sanders. He had to sweep these type of states, and he wasn't able to.

See, Iowa did not have a huge turnout. 18-30 people constituted around 18%(moderate) of the votes this time vs 23% incase of Obama. If we had that turnout, Sanders would have swept by 6-7 points.

Sanders won a whopping 86% odd the votes under 30 & won a good majority of votes under 45. Clinton gained huge in over 65 who was the biggest constituent.

This kind of lead among young people is unheard of. Also, Sanders probably won the popular votes (or maybe not?)

There were 6 Coin Tosses (to settle ties) & Clinton won all 6 (unreal). In the end she won by 2 or 3.

In the end - Clinton 22, Sanders 21, 1 more will probably be decided by O Malley supporters in March (O Malley quit)

CBarca wrote:The coin toss thing is a non issue. Those aren't for the state delegates who actually matter. If it was an issue, it wouldn't have been solved through a coin toss. Hillary winning all of them is pretty funny though. Bernie can't catch a break lmao

And when you look at actual delegates awarded, Hillary edges Bernie by one, which is fair since she had slightly more % of the vote.

She doesn't. She won 6 by coin toss (all 6 toss-up's were won by her). Unreal.

In 2 counties, there are details of Chair indulging in hanky-panky, Sanders was leading, the chair let their supporters leave & then counted independents with Hillary. Some voters have shown images of influence by the Chair. 90 Precints were not staffed. There are so many videos. Hillary got absolutely destroyed among young people.

Has any candidate in world history with 50% votes received 14% of votes between 18-30? This looks very bad for her in the general.

VendettaRed07 wrote:Had Hillarys ground game not been so impressive or has she not learned from the mistakes she made in 08, this would have been a blow out and Sanders would have won.

Not winning Iowa though regardless of how close it was makes me feel like this primary is already over. Sanders needed to sweep the rural mostly white states in order to have a shot. He outspent Hillary by quite a lot in Iowa and banked his chances of winning this primary by trying to win the first two states and hoping the momentum would carry him. As this goes on his resources will continue to be spread out and will face states with demographics that continue to work against him. He won't be able to outspend her really anywhere else. He'll win Vermont and New Hampshire but after losing Iowa I think it's going to be incredibly hard for him to win anywhere else besides that.

Sanders only started spending in the last month or so. Hillary was campaigning for 8 years lol. Atleast 1 year full fledged.

Resources is not an issue. He got 3M $ a day after the Iowa results, people got even mad that he could not get an outright victory. He is sitting on 28M$ vs 38M$ for Hillary & has more individual contribution with an average of 27$ than anyone in American history. Sanders has had 1000's of unpaid young college students campaigning for him on their own money. It's unreal passion. Young voters & passionate people will fund this campaign

Winning would have been great but a virtual tie is not bad. He got enough delegates, will sweep NH & heads to Nevada with a big positive. You're right though a Clinton loss meant Hillary would have freaked out in a debate stage & would have shouted or cried (like 08 NH debate soon).

McLewis wrote:Looks like it'll come down to South Carolina for Clinton and Sanders. Clinton takes Iowa while Sanders takes New Hampshire. South Carolina is a stronghold for the black vote so whoever has resonated best with them should be well positioned to win it. I personally see Clinton winning that.

Always a chance Cruz would pip Trump to Iowa. The more the media hypes Trump, the more fuel and support they give to Cruz, who is anti-establishment, which also includes the mainstream media. This showed last night.

Just Iowa being Iowa.

Trump maybe done. Very bad for him. Rubio got 23% & the other fringe establishment with Bush, Christie have 10% plus votes. That in a bad state for the establishment in Iowa means Rubio will be taking all those votes soon & will get 35-50% votes soon in most states.

Trump needs to win a few states. He has failed massively among young voters. Apparently he did much MUCH worse than Cruz & Rubio among young voters.

And SC does not come next. There's almost 25 days to SC. After NH there is a Dem Debate, then Nevada. Then SC.

Nevada is also a predominantly white state with a good Hispanic population (1-4th maybe). Sanders got a few endorsements for Spanish papers & stuff recently. He needs to win that or do VERY VERY well. SC, Clinton will 100% will IMO. Sanders needs to do well in Nevada & stay on.

There's 3-4 Super Tuesday States including Vermont which he will surely win or has a very very strong chance. I think NH & SC is decided. If Sanders can pull up Iowa Level performance in Nevada, then this thing will get really close

footyfan01 wrote:See, Iowa did not have a huge turnout. 18-30 people constituted around 18%(moderate) of the votes this time vs 23% incase of Obama. If we had that turnout, Sanders would have swept by 6-7 points.

Sanders won a whopping 86% odd the votes under 30 & won a good majority of votes under 45. Clinton gained huge in over 65 who was the biggest constituent.

This kind of lead among young people is unheard of. Also, Sanders probably won the popular votes (or maybe not?)

There were 6 Coin Tosses (to settle ties) & Clinton won all 6 (unreal). In the end she won by 2 or 3.

In the end - Clinton 22, Sanders 21, 1 more will probably be decided by O Malley supporters in March (O Malley quit)

Sanders has the young people but they are also the laziest type of voters, if your whole campaign is based on the youth's vote you're pretty much done.

If Sanders really want to win this election he needs to divide Clinton's base of support, he should work on moderates and centrists democrats, black people and hispanic.