Re: 2016 Election
 

I wonder if Nate Silver could do some analysis on the frequency with which Flavius threatens to leave this thread and never come back?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Yes. They are low-population states dominated by white folks.

Sanders is better than Clinton vis-a-vis retail politics -- remember that he has won elections in Vermont, while her experience is in New York and (indirectly via her husband) national. She should have enough resources and cash to run an effective ground game in larger population states, and Sanders' weakness among black voters is going to become more obvious.

But in any case, she is going to secure the superdelegates. Primaries are not won simply on the popular vote. If you want any proof, you can ask Hillary Clinton, who led (or essentially tied) with Obama in the 2008 primary but lost on the delegate count. Barring some sort of bizarre outcome, her nomination is essentially a fait accompli at this point -- it's not as if there is some third choice who is going to emerge from the shadows.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Why is this a surprise? Bernie has been winning elections for the part 30 years, he's no neophyte. Plus he did say he wouldn't be doing this if he didn't think he could win.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I don't actually remember anyone having pro-Hillary comments in this thread, apart from the few who mentioned that they would only vote for her if she secures the nomination as a case of least-bad.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The fact that GOP diehards would prefer to have Sanders as an opponent should tell us something.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I honestly don't see Hillary as 'imploding'. The news media tries to find drama in everything, and she's certainly getting a tougher run for her money than expected, but I don't think she's about to lose. And if she did lose - we have Bernie who isn't necessarily a bad alternative. Polls show him winning against Trump in the general, so it's not the major topic you seem to want it to be.

As reflected in the Democratic debates, Hillary/Bernie are both 'relatively' boring candidates compared to the Republicans, where 'imploding' seems more appropriate.

I had said, after Trump's outbursts in the last debate, that if he didn't lose support after that, nothing will affect him. Well, it seems like he's still way ahead in SC. He's even getting support of Televangelists, FFS - he truly is the teflon candidate. If he does well in SC, which has to be one of the most religious / conservative states, it's not clear what can stop him.

I do worry that Trump will shift hard to center in the General and not pay any price (he seems to be able to tell lies without consequence, to a degree not seen before on any side). I would rather see Hillary/Bernie go up against Rubio or Cruz, given that they are going to find it much harder to walk back their extreme positions on social matters.

I continue to like Kasich and Bush, but they seem doomed.

Re: 2016 Election
 

That's a problem for Flavius, who thinks that his biases, strawmen and wishful thinking should be talking points for the rest of us.

Re: 2016 Election
 

There may be some. Honestly, I was prepared to support and vote for her way back when all this started, then Bernie Sanders threw his hat in the ring and I am fully behind him (even if the tide of public opinion doesn't rate his chances.)

If she won the nomination, I'd vote for her against Trump or Cruz, maybe Rubio but if she was up against Jeb! or Kasich, I could be swayed either way. It'll come down to either voting for her, the GOP candidate because if I wanted to go with my conscience (for want of a better word) and voted for Jill Stein or a libertarian, my vote essentially becomes meaningless.

Illinois is an open primary though (with the odd requirement that one declares verbally the party they are supporting and the official restates that in a voice loud enough so everyone can hear them), I'll be voting for Bernie at least once this year :nod:

Re: 2016 Election
 

Trump has already shifted in his recent pro abortion comments. Maybe he is already starting to reposition for a third party run.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I understand why people do not like Trump, and I do see him a a bit of joke candidate. But why do not the same people do not make similar comments about Hillary? Arguably she is worse.

Re: 2016 Election
 

There have been some pro Hillary comments, but only in the sense that she is the pragmatic choice. I haven't seen any support for her because they think she has the best policies and is a great candidate, but rather she is most likely to defeat the GOP candidate. If this is untrue, for someone, anyone, please correct me.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I suspect that if Trump wins the GOP nomination (and he won't) that he will attempt to appeal to the middle/swing voters and to working class Democrats in a way that doesn't alienate his rabid xenophobic base. That would be tough, although he does know how to work the media. He probably won't double-down on the hate mongering.

Re: 2016 Election
 

If I was writing the script, I'd have Sanders win the nomination, going up against Cruz with Trump running as a third party candidate smearing the crap out of Teddy Boy, splitting the vote and handing the win to the Bern.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

Re: 2016 Election
 

As an anti-Republican, I will vote for whatever Democrat wins the nomination. If the Democrats nominated a cross-dressing communist golden retriever, then Fido would be getting my vote.

Sanders won't win the nomination, but I'll vote for him if he does.

Re: 2016 Election