New York GOP/ Democratic Primaries

[Rex Kwon Do]

Wow. President Trump it is, kids.

 

[dontsnitch]

Who's the one joker that voted Ted Cruz? Must have been a misclick.

 

[RockstarChris]

Wow. President Trump it is, kids.

I love supporting someone from the beginning that wins and wins and wins and doesn't lose.

If Bernie taps Trump out with a RNC (pun intended) then I will rethink my life.

209.

 

[HockeyBjj]

CNN hates Trump more than MSNBC

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/opini...ew-york-primary-challenges-zelizer/index.html

Holy fuck that's horrible. It's like a team sweeps the western conference finals with domination each game, and news talks about how they have no chance to actually win it because a few of their bench players underperformed after the game was out of reach

 

[LilMountain]

I can already tell NY has early voting from the first results being reported.

Clinton up, 60-40, it will close like Ohio did as the same day vote breaks for Bernie, but I don't think it will be enough.

Bernie loses by 5%, is my prediction.

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

 

[Lead]

So the math already was pretty much impossible for Bernie before this. I think super delegates is the last argument left cause even a big win in California doesn't catch him up

 

[ucunc156]

That October registration deadline combined with 115% of all media saying Sanders never had a chance since April...

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?

 

[ucunc156]

So the math already was pretty much impossible for Bernie before this. I think super delegates is the last argument left cause even a big win in California doesn't catch him up

Bernie needs to play endgame here. What does he want? He needs to use his clout and followers to make good on said revolution. If he thinks most change can be affected via VP to keep a progressive in the stream of consciousness, then cut a deal. If he thinks he can convince clinton to give certain cabinet spots to more progressive people, then do that. But at this point, barring endictment, its just completely out of reach unless like 80% of the SDs flip to him. Its time to make nice and play endgame. Or if he wants to play with fire, burn it all down, run independent, and make sure there are 2 republicans than end up running and force a 4 person race (2 most liked in sanders and kasich vs 2 least liked with clinton and trump). Its basically lighting yourself on fire if he picks this option though and I have no idea where he would come up with the $$$

 

[ucunc156]

Bernie depends on the young vote. Hillary depends on the graveyard vote.

The latter shows up to vote in stronger numbers than the former, at least for Clinton.

People keep saying this but it doesn't make sense. There is ZERO reason why people would waste their time standing in line, going to a political rally, committing hours of their free time, but not take 20 minutes to vote. I'm fully confident his youth vote is showing up, but I guess everyone else in the party is just gung ho against him?

 

[Deleted member 484047]

I doubt Sanders will run as an independent, he knows it would cost the Democrats the white house. But at the same time, if the GOP splits and runs two, it might be their best shot at taking either the house or senate back. It's going to be interesting, to say the least.

 

[ucunc156]

Yeah I don't think Sanders would run indy unless there were two reps running. I don't think he will run indy regardless, just throwing out an interesting hypothetical if he really wants to break and reform the system. No better way than a 4 person presidential nomination.

To your second point, some interesting dynamics at play here. Ironically enough, if the republicans ran 2 candidates, it would ensure max voter turnout (the not trump crowd and the trump crowd would both show up). It would be them conceding the presidency but probably dominating down the ballot (both trump and not trump candidate would vote for whoever the R candidate is). In this scenario, the dems could trot both clinton and sanders out there and be confident enough that clinton wins the most based off her name, but gets the highest turnout from sanders supporters as well. Again, they vote D down the ballot.

 

[Deleted member 484047]

Yup. In the end, the GOP splitting will cost them the white house, but possibly get them a powerful majority in Congress, maybe enough to bypass the president entirely. Granted that would take a small miracle, but would be a rocket propelled kick in the nuts to the democrats since their midterm turnout is horrible.

And no, I doubt they would willing trot Sanders out there to maximize voting. The reason being if nobody won't enough states, which is the probable outcome, the Senate chooses the president which would ensure a Republican president.

Holy shit, we may have figured out the GOP battle plan here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

One portion of Turtle bay east midtown had only 1 VOTER. lol

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...primary-results.html?_r=0#11/40.7100/-73.9800

Clinton owned the NYC metropolitan area (in NY proper).

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york

AKA, "the Deep South."

 

[ucunc156]

The reason being if nobody won't enough states, which is the probable outcome, the Senate chooses the president which would ensure a Republican president.

Holy shit, thats a thing??? The senate can flat out pick the president if no candidate gets the 270 or whatever via electoral college? Even if more than 2 candidates are running?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Holy shit, thats a thing??? The senate can flat out pick the president if no candidate gets the 270 or whatever via electoral college? Even if more than 2 candidates are running?

No, it's the House of Representatives that picks among the top three finishers in electoral votes if no one gets 270. Same outcome, though, as Republicans have a huge advantage in House voting (meaning, Democrats need to win a big majority of total votes to break even in seats).

 

[Deleted member 484047]

Yep. Our system is designed around there only being two candidates, the Senate voting has never actually happened so it would be a first.

Best part? They don't have to vote for any of the actual canidates. They could vote in Jeb or Romney if they wanted.

Edit: Maybe not? Not gonna lie, Im 14 years out of my last civics class, so my memory is pretty flaky about the finer details.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yep. Our system is designed around there only being two candidates, the Senate voting has never actually happened so it would be a first.

Best part? They don't have to vote for any of the actual canidates. They could vote in Jeb or Romney if they wanted.

Edit: Maybe not? Not gonna lie, Im 14 years out of my last civics class, so my memory is pretty flaky about the finer details.

It has twice happened that the House has picked the president (John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson). They have to pick from among the top three electoral vote-getters.

 

[Deleted member 484047]

Ah, okay. As I said, my memory is pretty rusty.

I stand by my theory though. It would be a major risk, and they would sacrifice the grand prize, but maximizing their turnout for down ticket races could give them a lot of power elsewhere. Combine that with democrats being rather lethargic when they don't think voting matters, and it has the possibility of working.

 

[ultramanhyata]

AKA, "the Deep South."

Hillary pretty much kills it among uneducated, misinformed poor people in the urban North.

(Just like the GOP does in the rural South.)

A true progressive's only hope now is either a coronary or an indictment.

The last firewall, of course, being a Trump victory in the general.

Followed by four years of embarrassing asshatery, complete gridlock in DC, the utter implosion of the republican party... And a Warren landslide in 2020.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hillary pretty much kills it among uneducated, misinformed poor people in the urban North.

Also the highly educated, older voters, and wealthier ones (http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ny/dem), while Sanders won uneducated whites. Did you want to talk reality or just continue to do your "demonize anyone who dares disagree with Ultra" thing?

A true progressive's only hope now is either a coronary or an indictment.

The last firewall, of course, being a Trump victory in the general.

Followed by four years of embarrassing asshatery, complete gridlock in DC, the utter implosion of the republican party... And a Warren landslide in 2020.

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.