2016 Presidential Horse Race

[woolybug25]

Use your brain. What spin is the author trying to create. Yes, it's true that Wichita police RECEIVE guns and uniforms from the taxpayer as part of their job. That doesn't mean they USE those state-issued guns and uniforms when they're doing private contract work. They don't.

ETA: Even if they do, that doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. If a police officer receives an $800 firearm to do his job, the bill is $800 regardless of whether he uses that same weapon while working a private job.

- So first you say "the Koch's don't use police".

- I link an article showing they do.

- Then you tell me to read the article I linked and that my argument is "so beyond stupid" and that it's not relative because they were off-duty and not on the tax payer's dime.

- Then Cack quotes the article showing how they are using the training, guns, equipment, etc that taxpayers pick up the tab for.

- You tell Cack and I that the article has "nothing to do with Charles Koch hiring an off duty police officer in Wichita fucking Kansas. Stating the article was about NYPD, not the WPD. Then end that gem of a post with telling both of us that we are "better than that".

- I quote the post that you accused Cack and I of not reading again to illustrate that the officers were armed, off-duty municipal police with the power to arrest from you guess it... Wichita fucking Kansas.

- You tell us the article is just "spin" and that the costs probably aren't even that much.


So this bares the question... do you just argue until you are blue in the face and others give up? Regardless if you are correct? The above recap of the last two pages are exactly how the conversation has gone. It's completely ridiculous on your part. In fact, you should really apologize to both Cack and I for attacking our character when it is blatantly obvious that you were just going off of the cuff and completely incorrect.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Repubs could do a lot worse. I don't like that he wants to defund PP. I don't like that he tried to take down the unions (unsuccessfully). And I don't like that he's against same sex marriage. Also, wasn't he the one who jumped on the religious test during the whole Syrian refugee story a few months back?

I do like how the Koch brothers don't like him. An enemy to them, is a friend to me.



The Koch brothers intentionally snubbed John Kasich at their Ohio event last weekend – Rare

We are nearly polar opposites. Kasich is one of the few republican candidates that is closely aligned to me because of his prolife views. His views on drugs are opposed to my own but everything else mostly falls in line.

Bernie on the other hand has only one, major issue I disagree with him and that's his aggressively pro-choice stance. He really wants women free to kill their children and he doesn't believe in religious freedom in the workplace, i.e - you are not allowed to allow your religious views to shape your daily actions. It's something you must stow in a closet when entering a public space.

Lot of leaps to digest in this post.

The most important one is the bolded. You are right. I believe there is nary a politician in Washington that can truly look into the eyes of middle class voters and say "I am one of you". That is b/c politicians have been divorced from the common man for quite some time. It's sad, but true. Bern very well could be the closest we have had compared to other politicians. But that doesn't mean he is truly close. It just speaks volumes about what politics have become. It's an elitist game and once you are in, you are in.

Finally, as I mentioned in the post last night, I don't think the chart is saying what you think it does. The 55 is correct as it looks at all households, whether they have retirement accounts or not. The 7 would ignore the people that don't have a retirement account.

The chart was saying exactly what I thought it did. What percentage of households reach retirement age without a retirement account? What percentage of Bernie's reported finances are outside of retirement accounts?

I don't believe a conclusion can be drawn from this. But I'm allowing you to suck me in the "he's only this much more rich than the common man" fight which probably shouldn't deign a response.

I appreciate the discussion but I'll end my response here.

 

[Cackalacky]

Use your brain. What spin is the author trying to create. Yes, it's true that Wichita police RECEIVE guns and uniforms from the taxpayer as part of their job. That doesn't mean they USE those state-issued guns and uniforms when they're doing private contract work. They don't.

ETA: Even if they do, that doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. If a police officer receives an $800 firearm to do his job, the bill is $800 regardless of whether he uses that same weapon while working a private job.

We Care A Lot"

We care a lot about disasters, fires, floods and killer bees
We care a lot about the NASA shuttle falling in the sea
We care a lot about starvation and the food that Live Aid bought
We care a lot about disease, baby Rock, Hudson, rock, yeah!

We care a lot about the gamblers and the pushers and the geeks

We care a lot about the crack and smack and whack that hits the street
We care a lot about the welfare of all the boys and girls
We care a lot about you people cause we're out to save the world

YEAH!

And it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it

We care a lot about the army navy air force and marines
We care a lot about the SF, NY and LAPD
We care a lot about you people, about your guns
about the wars you're fighting gee that looks like fun

We care a lot about the Garbage Pail Kids, they never lie
We care a lot about Transformers cause there's more than meets the eye

We care a lot about the little things, the bigger things we top
We care a lot about you people yeah you bet we care a lot,

YEAH!

Well, its a dirty job but someone's gotta do it
And it's a dirty song but someone's gotta sing it

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d1g9PFtSCKw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[NorthDakota]

We are nearly polar opposites. Kasich is one of the few republican candidates that is closely aligned to me because of his prolife views. His views on drugs are opposed to my own but everything else mostly falls in line.

Bernie on the other hand has only one, major issue I disagree with him and that's his aggressively pro-choice stance. He really wants women free to kill their children and he doesn't believe in religious freedom in the workplace, i.e - you are not allowed to allow your religious views to shape your daily actions. It's something you must stow in a closet when entering a public space.

That's enough for me. Couldn't ever vote for someone like that.

 

[connor_in]

Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders | TheHill

Not only does HRC and Bernie get the same number of NH delegates despite him beating her by 22 percentage points, but apparently HRC is killing him in total delegate count due to the superdelegates already choosing.

Hillary Earns More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders | The Daily Caller

In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.

So the question is, does Bernie really have ANY chance, much less a realistic one?


EDIT: just found this from yesterday discussing same subject before the fact

Because of superdelegates, Bernie Sanders needs 62.5% of the New Hampshire popular vote to tie Hillary | Consumer Joe

“Superdelegates” go to the convention just like regular delegates but are free to support any candidate they like, independently of who their constituents prefer. One of Hillary Clinton’s tactics in keeping Joe Biden out of the presidential race was to “leak” her massive support from superdelegates. As of November 13th, she had over 359 committed delegates, before voting had started.

 

[pkt77242]

Not only does HRC and Bernie get the same number of NH delegates despite him beating her by 22 percentage points, but apparently HRC is killing him in total delegate count due to the superdelegates already choosing.

Hillary Earns More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders | The Daily Caller



So the question is, does Bernie really have ANY chance, much less a realistic one?


EDIT: just found this from yesterday discussing same subject before the fact

Because of superdelegates, Bernie Sanders needs 62.5% of the New Hampshire popular vote to tie Hillary | Consumer Joe

not correct. Between Iowa and NH they will have about the same amount of delegates. Sanders has won 14 and will probably end up with 15 from NH while Clinton will get 9.

Eta: oops you are counting super delegates.

 

[RDU Irish]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York just published an article titled "Decisive Trump victory sends GOP establishment reeling":



What are the odds that the GOP and the DNC are going to take this populist uprising for the grave warning sign that it is?

Dems have it under control - super delegates make it nearly impossible to unseat the establishment. Not surprisingly, Republicans don't have the same foresight to pre-empt this type of thing.

I pulled up exit polls on some site. One prevalent trend with Trump - the more educated the less support he got. Destroys it with those who don't ever try college with a steady decline to those with post-graduate educations where is numbers are meager.

 

[woolybug25]

Dems have it under control - super delegates make it nearly impossible to unseat the establishment. Not surprisingly, Republicans don't have the same foresight to pre-empt this type of thing.

I pulled up exit polls on some site. One prevalent trend with Trump - the more educated the less support he got. Destroys it with those who don't ever try college with a steady decline to those with post-graduate educations where is numbers are meager.

I have never in my life seen a person leading in the Republican primary, but not supported by literally one person I know that is a Republican. It's the most bizarre primary I have ever seen.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Not only does HRC and Bernie get the same number of NH delegates despite him beating her by 22 percentage points, but apparently HRC is killing him in total delegate count due to the superdelegates already choosing.

Hillary Earns More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders | The Daily Caller



So the question is, does Bernie really have ANY chance, much less a realistic one?


EDIT: just found this from yesterday discussing same subject before the fact

Because of superdelegates, Bernie Sanders needs 62.5% of the New Hampshire popular vote to tie Hillary | Consumer Joe

Dems have it under control - super delegates make it nearly impossible to unseat the establishment. Not surprisingly, Republicans don't have the same foresight to pre-empt this type of thing.

I pulled up exit polls on some site. One prevalent trend with Trump - the more educated the less support he got. Destroys it with those who don't ever try college with a steady decline to those with post-graduate educations where is numbers are meager.

I'm confused by this super delegate thing. They only make up, what, 15% of all delegates. How does that make it "nearly impossible" to unseat the establishment? Bernie can still get the nomination based on popular vote, correct?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I have never in my life seen a person leading in the Republican primary, but not supported by literally one person I know that is a Republican. It's the most bizarre primary I have ever seen.

It's funny you mention that. I've been trying to strain my friends though a political colander to see who actually will vote for Trump. I keep getting the sense that they're openly opposed to him but will secretly vote for him.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm confused by this super delegate thing. They only make up, what, 15% of all delegates. How does that make it "nearly impossible" to unseat the establishment? Bernie can still get the nomination based on popular vote, correct?

From what I've read Bernie Sanders needs to not only beat Hillary in delegates, but get 57% of them to offset the superdelegates.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

From what I've read Bernie Sanders needs to not only beat Hillary in delegates, but get 57% of them to offset the superdelegates.

Well lets say that Bernie wins the national popular vote. Do you honestly think the DNC would align the super delegates in Clinton's favor and try and screw over Sanders? That kind of middle finger to the democratic citizens in this country could potentially ruin Clinton's chance at winning the general election (which isn't that always the end goal?). I know the establishment is pissed that Bernie may swoop in, but I just can't see them cutting off their nose to spite their face. Doesn't make sense.

 

[woolybug25]

It's funny you mention that. I've been trying to strain my friends though a political colander to see who actually will vote for Trump. I keep getting the sense that they're openly opposed to him but will secretly vote for him.

Yep. While not one of says they support him, even openly disparage him, none of them will say that he wont get their vote if he ends up winning the primary.

This board will be interesting as well. As it will certainly cause some posters to vote for a man that they clearly do not think is capable of the position.

The American Political System... what a sad state we find ourselves in...

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Yep. While not one of says they support him, even openly disparage him, none of them will say that he wont get their vote if he ends up winning the primary.

This board will be interesting as well. As it will certainly cause some posters to vote for a man that they clearly do not think is capable of the position.

The American Political System... what a sad state we find ourselves in...

Yup, and it's exactly why I don't buy this super delegate fear-mongering via the Dems at the moment. Didn't the same thing happen with Obama in '08? The DNC won't run the risk of losing the general election. Enough Supers will support the popular nominee to maintain support among American voters to ensure they continue to show up and vote in the general.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yup, and it's exactly why I don't buy this super delegate fear-mongering via the Dems at the moment. Didn't the same thing happen with Obama in '08? The DNC won't run the risk of losing the general election. Enough Supers will support the popular nominee to maintain support among American voters to ensure they continue to show up and vote in the general.

Hillary will actively lobby the SDs to her side even if she loses the popular vote, which is a perfect example of why many people won't vote for her in the first place.

 

[RDU Irish]

From what I've read Bernie Sanders needs to not only beat Hillary in delegates, but get 57% of them to offset the superdelegates.

I know math is hard for you Bernie supporters but 15% super delegates if 100% allocated to H-dog means 50%/80% = 58.8% IF the straight up popular vote meant squat. Bernie split NH with a 60% over 38% victory that awarded him 15 delegates, Hillary 9 - yeah he got 62.5% of the delegates at large. But the six supers are in Hillary's corner so he ends up splitting the state. 60% was no enough to get the edge in this case.

 

[NDohio]

Fiorina out

"I've said throughout this campaign that I will not sit down and be quiet," Fiorina said in the statement.

"I'm not going to start now," she continued. "While I suspend my candidacy today, I will continue to travel this country and fight for those Americans who refuse to settle for the way things are and a status quo that no longer works for them."

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Hillary will actively lobby the SDs to her side even if she loses the popular vote, which is a perfect example of why many people won't vote for her in the first place.

Hypothetically if Bernie wins the popular vote and Hillary has the SD's support to the point where she gets the nomination, do you honestly think people who supported Bernie aren't going to be so pissed and deflated that they just don't vote? Imo, voter turnout in this event would be very low and Hillary would lose the general election. What good does that do the DNC?

 

[RDU Irish]

Yep. While not one of says they support him, even openly disparage him, none of them will say that he wont get their vote if he ends up winning the primary.

This board will be interesting as well. As it will certainly cause some posters to vote for a man that they clearly do not think is capable of the position.

The American Political System... what a sad state we find ourselves in...

It is the curse of the binary decision. I have said many times I would vote for any of the Republican candidates over Hillary and I will expand that to Bernie. Bernie would at least get an ounce of consideration and a chance I don't bother to vote. But Hillary is so far beyond reprehensible that I cannot fathom a scenario in which I would not go out of my way to make sure I voted for somebody else - even if she was behind in the polls by 99%.

 

[phgreek]

Yup, and it's exactly why I don't buy this super delegate fear-mongering via the Dems at the moment. Didn't the same thing happen with Obama in '08? The DNC won't run the risk of losing the general election. Enough Supers will support the popular nominee to maintain support among American voters to ensure they continue to show up and vote in the general.

These are all smart folks...experienced political people. If I were concerned I'd be watching vote counts at the caucuses and primaries...because they would be better served if the popular vote somehow lined up with their premature pledges...

What were the final raw counts from Iowa?

 

[RDU Irish]

Fiorina out

Rumors swirling about Christie hanging up the cleats too. Seems far enough along it would be nice to see them back someone else on the way out.

 

[phgreek]

It is the curse of the binary decision. I have said many times I would vote for any of the Republican candidates over Hillary and I will expand that to Bernie. Bernie would at least get an ounce of consideration and a chance I don't bother to vote. But Hillary is so far beyond reprehensible that I cannot fathom a scenario in which I would not go out of my way to make sure I voted for somebody else - even if she was behind in the polls by 99%.

...that makes two of us

 

[Irish#1]

The Washington Examiner's Byron York just published an article titled "Decisive Trump victory sends GOP establishment reeling":



What are the odds that the GOP and the DNC are going to take this populist uprising for the grave warning sign that it is?

My guess is they will wait to see how Donny and Bernie do in the next couple of primaries before they decide.

 

[woolybug25]

It is the curse of the binary decision. I have said many times I would vote for any of the Republican candidates over Hillary and I will expand that to Bernie. Bernie would at least get an ounce of consideration and a chance I don't bother to vote. But Hillary is so far beyond reprehensible that I cannot fathom a scenario in which I would not go out of my way to make sure I voted for somebody else - even if she was behind in the polls by 99%.

I'm in the boat that I might simply not vote this cycle. If it ends up Trump v Hillary, then I absolutely wont vote. If somehow Bernie, Bloomberg and/or Kasich ends up being candidate; then i'm back. But I don't want to look back and have to tell someone that my vote helped Trump or Hillary become the leader of this country.

 

[NDohio]

It is the curse of the binary decision. I have said many times I would vote for any of the Republican candidates over Hillary and I will expand that to Bernie. Bernie would at least get an ounce of consideration and a chance I don't bother to vote. But Hillary is so far beyond reprehensible that I cannot fathom a scenario in which I would not go out of my way to make sure I voted for somebody else - even if she was behind in the polls by 99%.

And if it is Hillary and Trump? Oh my. I'm fairly certain that would cause me to not vote. I have voted in every possible election since I turned 18. If those were my two choices, I think that streak would end.

 

[GoIrish41]

Hypothetically if Bernie wins the popular vote and Hillary has the SD's support to the point where she gets the nomination, do you honestly think people who supported Bernie aren't going to be so pissed and deflated that they just don't vote? Imo, voter turnout in this event would be very low and Hillary would lose the general election. What good does that do the DNC?

Time and a Trump candidacy, I suspect, would bind these wounds. I think lots of folks would show up just to vote against him, or Cruz. That said, I don't like the concept of super delegates. The candidate with the votes should win, period. And the DNC would damage their brand if they picked Hillary when Bernie got more votes.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

These are all smart folks...experienced political people. If I were concerned I'd be watching vote counts at the caucuses and primaries...because they would be better served if the popular vote somehow lined up with their premature pledges...

What were the final raw counts from Iowa?

They won't release the Iowa popular vote counts, last I heard. Is that what you're asking?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Time and a Trump candidacy, I suspect, would bind these wounds. I think lots of folks would show up just to vote against him, or Cruz. That said, I don't like the concept of super candidates. The candidate with the votes should win, period. And the DNC would damage their brand if they picked Hillary when Bernie got more votes.

This is exactly my point. Hillary is a pretty hated candidate. If they force her upon the Dems, I think voter turnout drops considerably, which favors Reps.

 

[RDU Irish]

They won't release the Iowa popular vote counts, last I heard. Is that what you're asking?

Fox shows 701 Hillary to 697 Bernie - obviously some district consolidated vote thing going on there. Also shows Hillary getting 23 delegates to Bernie's 21 - but that does not include supers.


Might be fun to do a poll - Hillary, Trump or stay home as the three choices.

 

[phgreek]

They won't release the Iowa popular vote counts, last I heard. Is that what you're asking?

Yes...while it appears they maybe have released the raw vote count in '08, they will no this time. Why?

BTW, if fox is reporting numbers, i think they must have Guesstimated, roveimated, extrapolated....some sort of ated.