| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MAKSIM
|
Quote:
|
Sanders has won only in relatively small states where black voters make up less than 10 percent of the population.
|
LORD is that true?! 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 26,488
|
Are there any red states with the possibility of turning blue this election? I was looking at the detailed primary results in Texas and it looks like it could be closer than 2008, which was 55% red and 43% blue.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 26,488
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
LORD is that true?! |
Yes pretty much. He won Colorado, Minnesota, and Oklahoma last night too which aren't small states but also have a majority white population.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 8,012
|
Are the voting breakdowns out yet?
Like percentage of Latino, men, women, and African American voters in each state for each candidate?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 20,070
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Jokes aren't serious...like the fact that I'm even explaining this to you boggles my mind  |
Let's say you watch a show that you take seriously. You recognize that it has great ratings and that it is bigger than most other shows on tv. Yet, there is a character and a plot line on said show that you, and a large part of the fandom, can't take seriously. You all make jokes about how stupid it is, yet you continue to follow the show because it is good in a lot of other areas.
You have just taken a show seriously (the US) but still have an adversity towards a character and their plot line (healthcare), seeing it as a joke.
It's not all black or white  also, the us isn't only about healthcare. It's entirely possible to see the fact that millions of people in one of the biggest and wealthiest countries on earth aren't insured is a joke, while still recognizing the good parts. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/3/2011
Posts: 4,231
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jpow
Are there any red states with the possibility of turning blue this election? I was looking at the detailed primary results in Texas and it looks like it could be closer than 2008, which was 55% red and 43% blue.
|
If Trump continues to alienate Latino's and Hillary does as well as she's doing with Blacks and Hispanics, it might go better than 12, but i really doubt it'll turn blue.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Girl stop trolling. You called the US a joke not Hillary
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jpow
Are there any red states with the possibility of turning blue this election? I was looking at the detailed primary results in Texas and it looks like it could be closer than 2008, which was 55% red and 43% blue.
|
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...-the-election/
Do you consider North Carolina a red state? That's the most likely option. Honestly, Dems best chances are holding Obama's electoral college win. We don't need to win more states. However, in the near future a lot of people see NC being more reliably blue and Georgia turning purple. Maybe even Arizona and Missouri if Trump ruins the GOP's chances with Hispanics. 
Texas is even on the table in the distant future.
Edit:
There is also this link about long term electoral college change. In future decades the Democratic Party might end up being a strong contended in the south again, and Republicans might get the "rust belt" again. I can GOP winning Ohio and Pennsylvania but still losing the election.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Thanks again for this. Sanders looks to still be competitive in Kansas and Nebraska. Hope she can take one of those two states along with Louisiana by a huge margin. She's actually running up the South in bigger totals than Obama  . Granted HRC was still a favorite candidate for blacks back then (unlike Sanders so far) but still  . He will probably crush her in Maine too. but hopefully she can rebound with Mississippi and Michigan and run up good margins there. Sanders says he's competitive in Michigan so we will find out.
Finally with regard to Florida, she'll win (as well as IL and NC) but he cannot let her win 30+ in all these huge states it's dooming him
Colorado hates Hillary. They lanslided her ass in 2008 and did another walloping this year. Luckily for her, if she is the nominee, she won't have to worry about caucusing in the GE
 |
There is no path forward for him. Hillary's proven coalition means that she's going to sweep LA, MS, FL, MI, NY, NJ, MD, DE, DC, NC, and Puerto Rico.
Bernie can win all the Kansas's and Wyomings he wants, but this race is effectively over.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Radiance
Feb 26 poll shows Hillary leading 33-23 in Kansas, so that may be in play. Maine and Nebraska probably comfortably Sanders though.
|
Kansas is going to go to Bernie. They may hate socialists, but they hate the Clintons more there. Kinda like why Bernie won Oklahoma.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eros
I get the sentiment behind this idea. And while fundamentally at its purest form, as far as being accessible and convenient for the masses, it makes sense, realistically it doesn't!
You need to think about the fact that the visibility of these elected officials, EVEN ONCE ELECTED, in this day & age is so minimal on the national stage and thats why it takes incredible amounts of money in order to catapult them to where they need to be. Now say you rid the system of this dilemma & make it so we all vote for primaries on the same day nation wide, to give everyone the same national introductory platform? whats to say the actual campaigning (which is what you'd be "getting rid of" in our current system) wont be shifted to another period in this new cycle, that might not be as visible to the public? And when you think about the momentum (with cash contributions & volunteers) little known public officials or candidates running for Presidency gain during our current political system being absent in this new cycle, it leaves it so that the politicians (or even reality tv personalities with $ to fund an entire campaign in this cycle) with the $ behind them are inherently at an advantage from the get go. Because in order to get the groundwork up & going for these potential candidates in this hypothetical scenario they would need a good amount of money to get kicked off.
Ok so even if we take all that off the table (and strictly speaking more so with the Democratic side of the party) even tearing apart the primary/caucus system as it is now eliminates all the failsafes put in places from being in utter shambles (like the RNC is rn with Trump). For example, like when John Edwards ran for President back in 08. Imagine he won the delegates needed for nomination before all of his scandals really broke the news cycle and onto a GE? We'd be ****ed. But the way the system is right now works to subvert a catastrophe like that. And while that can be a double edged sword, its still better than not having one. Also, caucuses are cheaper to run than primaries.
|
John Edwards is a perfect example of why you pick someone capable you know rather than someone you don't. Individuals can run their own campaigns with people they choose. The political parties and government make it harder via laws and the like for an upstart to get into the race and nothing more which you claim to support...meanwhile the quality of candidates continues to deteriorate.
ATRL claims everything with our political system is just fine and not in need of upgrades fir the 21st century. People claim our system is working but the data shows otherwise.
Weve got a candidate whos as trust worthy as Nixon who voters hate and have fa fundamental distrust in whos only claim to fame is being first lady and senator and sos with nothing to show for it other than the Iraq War vote and the failed Libya interaction. We got a guy with good ideas but no ability to lead who is a 30year insider claiming to be an outsider. We have a fake demagogue, two cuban immigrants who are anti immigrant, a robot and a person who is hated by everyone whos ever worked with him for any amount of time.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
There is no path forward for him. Hillary's proven coalition means that she's going to sweep LA, MS, FL, MI, NY, NJ, MD, DE, DC, NC, and Puerto Rico.
Bernie can win all the Kansas's and Wyomings he wants, but this race is effectively over.
|
We should see how he does in the midwest, i.e. Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. Those states have higher percentage of non-Hispanic whites, more working class, and less college educated. All demographics that favor Sanders. Albeit those states having slightly older population, and of the non-whites it's almost entirely black, which are two demographics that favor Clinton.
I think he needs a solid victory in IN, MI, and OH to stay competitive. This is unlikely, but still possible.
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/unit...rcentage#chart
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Radiance
Feb 26 poll shows Hillary leading 33-23 in Kansas, so that may be in play. Maine and Nebraska probably comfortably Sanders though.
|
45% of the population undecided?! That's huge.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,331
|
Other got more votes in MA than Ben Carson. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
We should see how he does in the midwest, i.e. Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. Those states have higher percentage of non-Hispanic whites, more working class, and less college educated. All demographics that favor Sanders. Albeit those states having slightly older population, and of the non-whites it's almost entirely black, which are two demographics that favor Clinton.
I think he needs a solid victory in IN, MI, and OH to stay competitive. This is unlikely, but still possible.
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/unit...rcentage#chart |
Chicago and the near chicago-area (lots of blacks and latinos) is going to win Illinois and Indiana for Hillary.
Detroit and its wealthy suburbs are going to win Michigan for Hillary.
Ohio may be a little closer, but Hillary won in 2008 without the black vote, and she has the black vote now. I expect Ohio to be a 10-20% Hillary win this year with Bernie winning white men and the working class (though Hillary's union endorsements will help her stabilize this vote).
Bernie's midwestern states are more like Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Idaho, and Kansas. These states don't have many democrats (or delegates) but the ones they do have are super liberal and hate the Clintons.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/22/2009
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jpow
Are there any red states with the possibility of turning blue this election? I was looking at the detailed primary results in Texas and it looks like it could be closer than 2008, which was 55% red and 43% blue.
|
Here in Georgia I think it's similar to what's going on in north Carolina. We're 50/50 minority/majority and increasing more than national average. Not in this election of course but by 2020 we should be majority minority which should turn it quickly purple followed by blue. Still worrisome that politics will become more race related as America becomes more integrated countrywide
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
Chicago and the near chicago-area (lots of blacks and latinos) is going to win Illinois and Indiana for Hillary.
Detroit and its wealthy suburbs are going to win Michigan for Hillary.
Ohio may be a little closer, but Hillary won in 2008 without the black vote, and she has the black vote now. I expect Ohio to be a 10-20% Hillary win this year with Bernie winning white men and the working class (though Hillary's union endorsements will help her stabilize this vote).
Bernie's midwestern states are more like Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Idaho, and Kansas. These states don't have many democrats (or delegates) but the ones they do have are super liberal and hate the Clintons.
|
Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho are NOT the midwest.
  Hillary is probably going to win Illinois, but Indiana's Chicago suburbs are not big enough to flip the whole state. Even Detroit can't flip all of Michigan.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
John Edwards is a perfect example of why you pick someone capable you know rather than someone you don't. Individuals can run their own campaigns with people they choose. The political parties and government make it harder via laws and the like for an upstart to get into the race and nothing more which you claim to support...meanwhile the quality of candidates continues to deteriorate.
|
But this goes back to your notion of making primary season hinge on ONE day though, which would eliminate a pathway for legitimate grass-roots candidates to gain momentum & become actual contenders? Like how are people going to "pick someone capable they know rather than someone they don't" when people in general aren't plugged into politics at all until a presidential election? Changing it to ONE day, rather than a season with spread out voting dates, would minimize that even further.
How do you not realize that?
ALSO the bolded part which I just caught what you meant. You mean individuals as in voters & supporters of w/e candidate? Which is preposterous because you do actually know the amount of organization and man power that goes into running campaigns??
LOL I have no idea why I'm continuing this conversation with you anyways, cuz its entirely all too pointless. And you clearly don't grasp the ideas that you're talking about! (I mean that in the most respectful way btw, I'm not trying to come off as aggressive)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LaNathan
Are the voting breakdowns out yet?
Like percentage of Latino, men, women, and African American voters in each state for each candidate?
|
Texas
Then you can just you the drop down that says "Democratic Races" then select the state.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
People claim our system is working but the data shows otherwise.
Weve got a candidate whos as trust worthy as Nixon who voters hate and have fa fundamental distrust in. We got a guy with good ideas but no ability to lead who is a 30year insider claiming to be an outsider. We have a fake demagogue, two cuban immigrants, a robot and a person who is hated by everyone whos ever worked with him for any amount of time.
|
Explain to me how changing the way we vote in primaries would eliminate this issue and not actually exacerbate it tho?
|
|
|
|
|
|
