New York GOP/ Democratic Primaries

[ucunc156]

meh Jack there is something to sacrificing for the greater good. We are seeing the republicans do it right now by doing everything to stop trump, even if it means they blow this election. I don't think anyone, even you, would disagree with Clinton being to the right of Obama. So there is something to the fact that having an utter disaster of a president in trump will push politics further left and possibly destroy the republican party as a whole. lose the battle to win the war.

And as far as minimizing damage by a republican president, Trump's probably your best bet just because he is completely clueless

 

[Jack V Savage]

meh Jack there is something to sacrificing for the greater good.

He's talking about other people--the already vulnerable--sacrificing for his idea of the greater good, though, no? Seems reprehensible to me.

We are seeing the republicans do it right now by doing everything to stop trump, even if it means they blow this election.

First, I'm guessing that a lot of nevertrumpers now will be voting for him and generally supporting him in November. Second, they're not saying that they want people to suffer so they'll learn their lesson and vote the way they want. They genuinely think that Trump is the worst option.

I don't think anyone, even you, would disagree with Clinton being to the right of Obama. So there is something to the fact that having an utter disaster of a president in trump will push politics further left and possibly destroy the republican party as a whole. lose the battle to win the war.

I don't agree that Clinton is to the right of Obama. Maybe in terms of what they think, but in terms of action, I think they're both pragmatists rather than ideologues, and Obama's success has moved the country and the party left. So I think Clinton would lead to a further leftward move. And--infinitely more importantly--I think we'd see a lot of good policy (or terrible policy get vetoed).

 

[TheStruggle]

Sanders is going to bow down, he doesn't want to come after Clinton like he should, he rather play the nice democrat role

 

[Fawlty]

Sanders is going to bow down, he doesn't want to come after Clinton like he should, he rather play the nice democrat role

Bernie as a third party would screw the country for his ideals, and he won't do it because he's a decent man. He definitely shouldn't go after Clinton's candidacy. That's the move of a person acting in bad faith. The only realistic (and very unlikely) scenario like this exists, which is Trump liquidating some of his company and running Indy. He's not that decent of a man, but even he probably won't take an Independent run.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I know the registration deadline is a bit of an issue, but can it really make up for the fact that sanders lost by 15 points? Are there that many independents or unregistered youth in NY to make up for that amount?

Maybe not all 15 points, but didn't they also lose like 150,000 registrations?

 

[ucunc156]

He's talking about other people--the already vulnerable--sacrificing for his idea of the greater good, though, no? Seems reprehensible to me.

First, I'm guessing that a lot of nevertrumpers now will be voting for him and generally supporting him in November. Second, they're not saying that they want people to suffer so they'll learn their lesson and vote the way they want. They genuinely think that Trump is the worst option.

I don't agree that Clinton is to the right of Obama. Maybe in terms of what they think, but in terms of action, I think they're both pragmatists rather than ideologues, and Obama's success has moved the country and the party left. So I think Clinton would lead to a further leftward move. And--infinitely more importantly--I think we'd see a lot of good policy (or terrible policy get vetoed).

I don't think its just his idea of the greater good. You yourself has said sanders ideals of a higher quality of life aligns more with your view than clintons view of a higher standard of life for the skilled and accomplished.

I think most of the never trumpers will stay home. you can't be that against a person and then show up to vote for him. The never trumpers I know have stated they will just stay home or vote dem.

I don't think that's fair to say. I think Obama is definitely to the left of Clinton, both in theory and in practice. Hell just ask republicans. Supposedly, Obama is a cuck and gets pushed around. While they have many things negative to say about Clinton, that she's weak isn't one of them.

As far as Trump in office, its clear his "own" party hates him, let alone the opposite party. I imagine nothing he tries to do will get passed with the exception of tax breaks for the wealthy and approval to escalate in the ME.

Maybe not all 15 points, but didn't they also lose like 150,000 registrations?

Do we really want to pretend that even if its true that all of those would have gone sanders, or even something like 75/25?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I don't think its just his idea of the greater good. You yourself has said sanders ideals of a higher quality of life aligns more with your view than clintons view of a higher standard of life for the skilled and accomplished.

I think most of the never trumpers will stay home. you can't be that against a person and then show up to vote for him. The never trumpers I know have stated they will just stay home or vote dem.

I don't think that's fair to say. I think Obama is definitely to the left of Clinton, both in theory and in practice. Hell just ask republicans. Supposedly, Obama is a cuck and gets pushed around. While they have many things negative to say about Clinton, that she's weak isn't one of them.

As far as Trump in office, its clear his "own" party hates him, let alone the opposite party. I imagine nothing he tries to do will get passed with the exception of tax breaks for the wealthy and approval to escalate in the ME.


Do we really want to pretend that even if its true that all of those would have gone sanders, or even something like 75/25?

I'm not saying it would have meant a w for Bernie, but I'm confident that the contest would have nbeen much closer.


Edit: and is the 125,000 voter purge in question, I'm not reading that claim to be in question anywhere?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think its just his idea of the greater good. You yourself has said sanders ideals of a higher quality of life aligns more with your view than clintons view of a higher standard of life for the skilled and accomplished.

But Clinton winning would get us closer to Sanders' ideal, probably more than Sanders winning would, ironically.

I think most of the never trumpers will stay home. you can't be that against a person and then show up to vote for him. The never trumpers I know have stated they will just stay home or vote dem.

Well, see, I guess. I think Trump will lose badly, but most Republicans who currently say they would never vote for him will.

I don't think that's fair to say. I think Obama is definitely to the left of Clinton, both in theory and in practice. Hell just ask republicans. Supposedly, Obama is a cuck and gets pushed around. While they have many things negative to say about Clinton, that she's weak isn't one of them.

That's not based on reality, though. Obama has gotten a stunning amount done. It's just that because he's a man, they want to attack him on those grounds, while they attack Clinton both for not possessing stereotypically female qualities and for possessing stereotypically female weaknesses. My starting point generally is that we don't know what candidates are like as people, and the images and attacks aren't necessarily based on reality.

As far as Trump in office, its clear his "own" party hates him, let alone the opposite party. I imagine nothing he tries to do will get passed with the exception of tax breaks for the wealthy and approval to escalate in the ME.

Well, it's also clear that he is the most popular Republican running among Republicans and his policy agenda is--as you say--pretty much what Republican politicians and donors want anyway. No reason Congress won't go along with him on most of that stuff.

Do we really want to pretend that even if its true that all of those would have gone sanders, or even something like 75/25?

Sanders fans are completely delusional. They can't just face the fact that most liberals prefer Clinton. It happens. Every single adult who follows politics has seen elections where their preferred candidate wasn't as popular. It's only Sanders and Paul fans who act like it's some kind of conspiracy or that everyone who doesn't agree with them is being tricked, is corrupt, or is evil.

 

[ucunc156]

But Clinton winning would get us closer to Sanders' ideal, probably more than Sanders winning would, ironically.

Well, it's also clear that he is the most popular Republican running among Republicans and his policy agenda is--as you say--pretty much what Republican politicians and donors want anyway. No reason Congress won't go along with him on most of that stuff.

Sanders fans are completely delusional. They can't just face the fact that most liberals prefer Clinton. It happens. Every single adult who follows politics has seen elections where their preferred candidate wasn't as popular. It's only Sanders and Paul fans who act like it's some kind of conspiracy or that everyone who doesn't agree with them is being tricked, is corrupt, or is evil.

I don't agree that clinton would get us closer to a sanders ideal. Its the whole thing of ask for a loaf, get a slice vs asking for a slice and getting crumbs. The reps have shown thy are going to take a hard line no stance to everything a dem proposes, and eventually meet in the middle and stall as long as possible, so rather as well start left and meet in the middle instead of meet in the middle and shift right.

What makes Trump disastrous is his wall idea and banning Muslims. reps wont ever push either of those agendas. They'll pass deregulation of businesses and tax cuts for the rich, which means trump really isn't worse than insert X republican here.

Yes many of them are delusional (I'd like to think I'm fairly even keel, even though I strongly dislike clinton). But I don't think its that most liberals prefer clinton. I think most democrats prefer clinton, and America in general is just nowhere as liberal as the rest of the developed world. So even our "liberal" wing, isn't really all that liberal.

I think we can all agree that on both sides, private party politics, the electoral college, etc are clearly meant to water down 1 person 1 vote and a pure democracy. Its certainly not some grand conspiracy but the rules exist the way they do to benefit a two party establishment system.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't agree that clinton would get us closer to a sanders ideal. Its the whole thing of ask for a loaf, get a slice vs asking for a slice and getting crumbs. The reps have shown thy are going to take a hard line no stance to everything a dem proposes, and eventually meet in the middle and stall as long as possible, so rather as well start left and meet in the middle instead of meet in the middle and shift right.

They have never shown that they will eventually meet in the middle. What we've actually seen is many instances of Obama trying to meet them in the middle, and Republicans still rejecting it, leading to better outcomes than could have been hoped for. That's partly because Obama has the high ground when negotiations break down. If he'd gone radical to start with, he wouldn't have that. And that goes to the point.

What makes Trump disastrous is his wall idea and banning Muslims. reps wont ever push either of those agendas. They'll pass deregulation of businesses and tax cuts for the rich, which means trump really isn't worse than insert X republican here.

Well, I agree with this except that I think that that's all disastrous, and that Cruz would actually be worse than Trump.

Yes many of them are delusional (I'd like to think I'm fairly even keel, even though I strongly dislike clinton). But I don't think its that most liberals prefer clinton. I think most democrats prefer clinton, and America in general is just nowhere as liberal as the rest of the developed world. So even our "liberal" wing, isn't really all that liberal.

Well, at the very least, most self-identified liberal voters who are left-leaning prefer Clinton. I get that Sanders fans want to excommunicate liberals who disagree with them (like Tea Partiers have excommunicated radical right-wingers like Boehner).

I think we can all agree that on both sides, private party politics, the electoral college, etc are clearly meant to water down 1 person 1 vote and a pure democracy. Its certainly not some grand conspiracy but the rules exist the way they do to benefit a two party establishment system.

I mean, caucuses are less democratic than primaries, and that has been hugely benefiting Sanders. The rules are the rules, and different candidates benefit from different rules.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You have to be an extra level of naive or just plain phony to think that Clinton's shift in rhetoric meant she was going to pursue Sanders' ideals.
Add in pretending she's not to the right of Obama and I think you can figure out which one it is.

 

[ucunc156]

They have never shown that they will eventually meet in the middle. What we've actually seen is many instances of Obama trying to meet them in the middle, and Republicans still rejecting it, leading to better outcomes than could have been hoped for. That's partly because Obama has the high ground when negotiations break down. If he'd gone radical to start with, he wouldn't have that. And that goes to the point.

Well, I agree with this except that I think that that's all disastrous, and that Cruz would actually be worse than Trump.

Well, at the very least, most self-identified liberal voters who are left-leaning prefer Clinton. I get that Sanders fans want to excommunicate liberals who disagree with them (like Tea Partiers have excommunicated radical right-wingers like Boehner).

I mean, caucuses are less democratic than primaries, and that has been hugely benefiting Sanders. The rules are the rules, and different candidates benefit from different rules.

I think Obamacare is a far throw away from what it was supposed to be originally. I think Obama wanted certain things, never got backing (in part from his own party), and republicans went along with the bastardized version of it which still held some of their interests.

Agreed, Cruz is the nightmare scenario, and the worst thing about Trump losing steam is that it made republicans think Cruz is actually a normal, reasonable person.

Eh I think there is a difference between liberal and democrat. Even the exit polls in NY, showed only like 37% of democrats believed we needed more liberal policies. That being said, its a two party system currently, and the majority of the party that clinton and sanders closest identify to agree with clinton's methods more than sanders.

I'm not saying the game is rigged against sanders. I'm saying that there are things that benefit various candidates in various ways. From caucuses to closed primaries, etc. The purpose of these political parties, rules, and electoral college is to limit 1 person 1 vote ideals. Whether that benefits or hurts sanders, isn't my point, nor my care. Just that its a rigged system and not a true democracy (which we pretty much already knew when we see presidents win popular votes but not the EC.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think Obamacare is a far throw away from what it was supposed to be originally. I think Obama wanted certain things, never got backing (in part from his own party), and republicans went along with the bastardized version of it which still held some of their interests.

Republicans never went along with the ACA.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Also the highly educated, older voters, and wealthier ones (http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ny/dem), while Sanders won uneducated whites.

Of course she won the first three. The "highly educated" also happen to be, by and large, the "wealthier" in a market economy. The majority of them will always opt for either the richest or the most degree'd democrat in the race. It's about kindred spirits.

And older voters are, with rare exceptions (like Bernie himself), simply beaten-down, fully-programmed, Establishment genuflectors.

And by throwing the qualifier "white" in there on the "uneducated" primary voter block it proves you understood damn well that my previous post's inclusion of the word "urban" was PC code for "non-white".

And how do these numbers break down according to your link?

Whites without a degree: 55% to 45% - Sanders (a margin of only 10 points).

Non-whites without a degree: 71% to 29% - Clinton (a margin of over 40 points). lol

But nice attempt at spinning the data. Maybe readers of your post who don't follow the link will walk away thinking that Sanders won the high-school drop out and GED demographic in a landslide.

Maybe a "true progressive" who is himself completely sheltered from any negative consequences of bad policy and who doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. For the rest of us, our hope is that Clinton wins. It is interesting how alleged "true progressives" are always rooting for rightward turns in policy.

It's this shit again...

I know you're political adroit enough to understand that if Trump walks into the Oval Office it will be as an instant lame duck - with four years to go.

The man is obviously despised by the dems. But, most importantly, despised by the vast majority of the GOP. There will be not one, significant policy change (that might hurt the most vulnerable Americans) achieved on his watch.

Instead, it will basically be a sick comedy of personal, verbal embarrassment and congressional gridlock. Resulting in a virtually irreparable tarnishing of the republican brand. Maybe even a dissolution, for all intents and purposes, of the party.

(On the other hand, if Cruz were to be the nominee and beat Clinton in the general, that could potentially be costly to the working and middle class - relative to the costs they will incur by way of Hillary "The Harlot of Wall Street" Clinton.)

Whereas, with four years of Clinton the true progressive American citizen is faced with the wrist-slitting Hobson's choice of either eight years of Clinton... or a potentially competent, effective conservative republican as president in 2020.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of course she won the first three. The "highly educated" also happen to be, by and large, the "wealthier" in a market economy. The majority of them will always opt for either the richest or the most degree'd democrat in the race. It's about kindred spirits.

And older voters are, with rare exceptions (like Bernie himself), simply beaten-down, fully-programmed, Establishment genuflectors.

I see. So poor voters are illegitimate because they're uneducated and educated voters are illegitimate because they make decent money. Nice.

And by throwing the qualifier "white" in there on the "uneducated" primary voter block it proves you understood damn well that my previous post's inclusion of the word "urban" was PC code for "non-white".

Yep. Forgot about that. Non-white voters are illegitimate because they are genetically inferior.

Lovely personality you got there.

I know you're political adroit enough to understand that if Trump walks into the Oval Office it will be as an instant lame duck - with four years to go.

The man is obviously despised by the dems. But, most importantly, despised by the vast majority of the GOP. There will be not one, significant policy change (that might hurt the most vulnerable Americans) achieved on his watch.

Yeah, surely there is no way Congressional Republicans will back Trump's hugely regressive changes to fiscal policy, hawkishness, and attempts to put right-wingers in the SCOTUS. That might be exactly what they want, but, you know, they don't like Trump.

Whereas, with four years of Clinton the true progressive American citizen is faced with the wrist-slitting Hobson's choice of either eight years of Clinton... or a potentially competent, effective conservative republican as president in 2020.

The true progressive American citizen, who isn't like you (that is, lacking any empathy for other Americans--especially, the poor--and completely sheltered himself) will look forward to continued progress is a progressive direction under Clinton.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I see. So poor voters are illegitimate because they're uneducated and educated voters are illegitimate because they make decent money. Nice.

Yep. Forgot about that. Non-white voters are illegitimate because they are genetically inferior.

Lovely personality you got there.

Yeah, surely there is no way Congressional Republicans will back Trump's hugely regressive changes to fiscal policy, hawkishness, and attempts to put right-wingers in the SCOTUS. That might be exactly what they want, but, you know, they don't like Trump.

The true progressive American citizen, who isn't like you (that is, lacking any empathy for other Americans--especially, the poor--and completely sheltered himself) will look forward to continued progress is a progressive direction under Clinton.

From the looks of this post I think you were hitting the celebratory champagne a little too hard last night with the rest of the country club liberals.

 

[Jack V Savage]

From the looks of this post I think you were hitting the celebratory champagne a little too hard last night with the rest of the country club liberals.

So seriously, what group of voters is untainted, either by being uneducated, making too much money, or not having the right skin tone for you? I mean, I know the real truth is that you have your gallo and you want to disparage anyone who didn't vote for him, but taking your theory of tainted voters at face value, who is cool? Just the 50 whites with a college degree but a low income?

 

[ultramanhyata]

So seriously, what group of voters is untainted, either by being uneducated, making too much money, or not having the right skin tone for you? I mean, I know the real truth is that you have your gallo and you want to disparage anyone who didn't vote for him, but taking your theory of tainted voters at face value, who is cool? Just the 50 whites with a college degree but a low income?

Note: I live in a real world. One in which, just as not every person without a college degree is ignorant concerning matters of economics and foreign policy, not every person with a college degree is knowledgeable about them.

These sorts of educational demographics have some predictive power but they are by no means fully determinative.

That being said, as I pointed out, Bernie only won 10% more whites without a college degree than Hillary while Hillary won over 40% more non-whites without a college degree than Bernie.

I think the implications are clear as to which candidate has the edge when it comes to low information voters.

Also, and especially in the context of the current economy, not every American with a college degree is "wealthy". Far, far from it. Though most wealthy Americans probably have a degree.

Big difference.

But you already understood all this. And are just attempting to dumb my position down to a case of "heads I win, tails you lose".

 

[theBLADE1]

I hope people realize that these results actually are not very indicative of the mindset of a lot of New Yorkers. Over 100,000 people in the Bronx were unable to vote because of DNC corruption and also the fact that 3.2 million independent's were not able to cast their vote which is a demographic that sways heavily towards Bernie Sanders. Fun fact, 40% of Americans are registered as independent. 27% Democrat and 20% Republican. Because most people are aware that our two-party system is pretty broken.

Hillary won where the money is. Bernie won where New Yorkers have been screwed by those with money.

If you were to look at a map of New York and how each County voted and didn't know about the population of each County you would think Sanders won handily.

Not over till the fat lady sings folks.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You were only off by one... the one in front of the 5 that is.

Wrong kind of 5% guy. 55-45 would have been the 5% I was referring to. I was off by 3%.