101 replies to this topic

[Toan]

 

 

edit: I don't know which admin set the forum to auto-correct "T rump" to "Drumpf," but I approve and thank you.

 

 

Five bucks says it was Toan. 

 

 

Damn, I'm out five bucks.

[wisp]

I'm not sure if I'm sharing this for laughs or because it actually makes me kind of uncomfortable, but I came across this post on Fusion about Apocalyptic Bible passages that, in retrospect, are probably about Donald Drumpf.  Yeah, people can and will say this about almost anyone in politics (I distinctly remember that the first time I ever heard of Barack Obama was about 12-15 years ago when I stumbled across a website detailing why he was the Antichrist), and I don't believe in this stuff anyway. But I gotta say, if Drumpf got elected and actually did all the things he's been promising to do, I'd probably believe it then.

[Selena]

I think your paranoia's been cranked up to 11, wisp. He's just your average narcissistic xenophobic jackass, not the son of Satan.

 

Or if he is, I'm thoroughly disappointed in Satan, because this is the least-classy way to start doomsday. Could've at least made the antichrist good looking. Sheesh.

[Fëanen]

Hey, Revelation is full of bizarre creatures, why not a giant mouth with a flock of sparrows living in its hair?

[Elvenlord]

I think your paranoia's been cranked up to 11, wisp. He's just your average narcissistic xenophobic jackass, not the son of Satan.

 

Or if he is, I'm thoroughly disappointed in Satan, because this is the least-classy way to start doomsday. Could've at least made the antichrist good looking. Sheesh.

 

Don't you see, that's how he sneaks in. No one expects it because Drumpf is so ridiculous.

[wisp]

I think your paranoia's been cranked up to 11, wisp. He's just your average narcissistic xenophobic jackass, not the son of Satan.

 

Or if he is, I'm thoroughly disappointed in Satan, because this is the least-classy way to start doomsday. Could've at least made the antichrist good looking. Sheesh.

Hey, I told you already that Drumpf would make me into a crazy person!  He's odious enough to make me afraid he's the villain of a story I don't even believe is real! XD

[Egann]

Just a reminder, but Bill Clinton called Drumpf shortly before he (Drumpf) decided to run. Bill called Drumpf, not the other way around.

 

The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

 

This year I've seen quite a few things which warrant insight checks. Just sayin'.

[JRPomazon]

Welp, Rubio is out. Losing to Drumpf in his home state probably crushed whatever chances he had, though Kasich managed to hold his own. The shame of it all is that Drumpf cleaned house tonight. I would of happily seen Cruz take something but it seems it wasn't in the cards. Hillary taking the lion's share tonight also bodes ill for Sanders. He needed those states badly to keep up. I'm more than concerned that this'll lead to a worst case scenario come July.

[wisp]

I'm not giving up on Bernie yet, but it is looking more and more like he might not be able to beat her. And as much as I wanted to be a Bernie or Bust voter, the threat of Drumpf and/or Cruz in the white house is just too much for me to handle, so if Hillary gets the nomination I'm probably going to have to swallow my distaste and vote for her anyway. I don't think she'll be any worse than most of your standard establishment Democrats, I'd just really been hoping to get someone I could believe would be decidedly better than those Democrats. 

 

Last election I voted for Jill Stein, having decided I wasn't going to get into a habit of picking "the lesser of two evils"; dammit, it was time to vote my conscience! This stance was bolstered by the fact that I live in a red state that was never going to go with a Democrat in the first place, so I could make my statement and feel satisfied that I was doing my part to give third-party candidates more of a chance. But as both main parties keep sliding to the right, the GOP is just becoming more and more unhinged, or at least the candidates they're spitting out are, and especially with rumors that GA might be turning into a swing state, I just feel like it would be reckless of me not to support the candidate who has the best chance of beating the party that is becoming overtly fascist.

 

I don't feel good about a Hillary presidency, but I feel relatively comfortable with the idea of her if the alternative is Drumpf or Cruz.

[Twinrova]

I'm pretty much in the same position as you, wisp. With the added benefit of definitely being in a swing state, yaaaay e_e

[Selena]

I am fully prepared to bite the bullet and vote for Clinton if Bernie fails to win the nomination. Even though I heavily dislike her.

 

Last minute third party votes don't do anything ever -- if you want to make a strong third party, all the prep work has to be done years before a major election. If you can't get a sizable portion (like, at least a quarter) of voters on your side, then it's really all for nothing. That's why the Tea Party has risen to become such a major force on the Republican side. They started with a hugely successful grassroots movement, won a few key state races, and then aimed higher. Now they've built up a large enough platform to where someone like Cruz can get so many votes.

 

And given the dangers of a throwaway vote this year..... yeah. I would not. Especially because Drumpf might win if she's the nominee. Republicans are overtly hostile to Clinton, and even Democrats are just kind of "meh" about her. She might have a harder time than people expect. That, and Drumpf will have a ton of ammunition to hurl at her once it comes time for the actual presidential debates. She's a logical person and spins things to sound very sensible, but logical arguments don't work against a guy like Drumpf.

 

Bernie may still win, but he'll need to establish strong leads out in the western states (especially California). Bernie vs. Drumpf is harder to predict. But I'm sure the debates would be entertaining.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Republicans, meanwhile, are apparently in talks to run a third party candidate against Drumpf. Which should make for some good political drama. Alternatively, if Kasich and Cruz can pull enough votes away from him, there's the brokered convention loophole to exploit. Which is also going to be good theater.

[Egann]

So, I have a question for ye democrats.

 

What is the deal with superdelegates? No, seriously. Clinton has 20 times Sander's superdelegate count--467 to 26--despite their regular delegate count being within 30%. Shouldn't a statistically representative superdelegate pool reflect that 30% difference, not exaggerate it by a factor of 20?

 

And no, this is not a trivial thing. There are, in total, about 700 superdelegates out of a total pool of 4765 delegates, which basically means the DNC reserves the right to sway the popular vote of it's members by up to 15%, near as I can tell for any reason it so chooses. The electoral college is wonky, granted, but when it's been off, it's been by one to three percent. Right now the DNC delegate count is, based off the difference between pledged delegates and superdelegates, fudged a whopping 14.2%.

 

 

The unfortunate reality is that both Clinton and Drumpf are now in end-game, and have more or less clinched the nominations or--in Drumpf's case--has clinched enough of a base to guarantee a stink (BTW, that's real presidential behavior; pout like a 2-year old and cry.) That's the second intimidation ploy this election cycle; one from each side. Yeah, you're in cahoots, for sure.

 

There is exactly nothing I can do about this except sit back and wait for the wizard of oz putting this circus show on to make a mistake, because this act is pretty close to airtight.

Edited by Egann, 16 March 2016 - 11:27 PM.

[Jasi]

And given the dangers of a throwaway vote this year..... yeah. I would not. Especially because Drumpf might win if she's the nominee. Republicans are overtly hostile to Clinton, and even Democrats are just kind of "meh" about her. She might have a harder time than people expect. That, and Drumpf will have a ton of ammunition to hurl at her once it comes time for the actual presidential debates. She's a logical person and spins things to sound very sensible, but logical arguments don't work against a guy like Drumpf.

 

This. This is not a drill. Drumpf is one step away from being the literal president of the United States. If you hate Hillary, it's time to get over it for real. Like a lot of you said, she's not that much different than any "establishment" politician, and we've had plenty of those presidents in our past that did good work. Hillary had to play the game to get this far. I have a hard time imagining a female candidate getting anywhere acting like Bernie (yup, I went there). And to be clear, that doesn't make what Bernie does bad, or what Hillary does good. It's just a fact that humanizes HRC a bit for me down from the image that people have of her as a scheming evil person that will do whatever to get ahead, to like a person that's still doing whatever to get ahead, but only because there's not really any other way for her.

[Selena]

Egann:

 

Superdelegates were created purely so that the DNC could override the will of Democratic voters, allowing the party to select the "most electable" candidate in tight races. After some lackluster presidential runs (McGovern, Carter), the DNC wanted more control over the party itself. More leadership from the top down. So, they implemented the superdelegate system right around the time Reagan got into office. Originally, they were meant to control 30% (!!!!) of the total Democratic vote. 

 

The superdelegates can vote before elections even begin, thus throwing off the perceived delegate tally before the primaries start, and they can switch their vote all the way up until the end of the election cycle.

 

Uuuuusually, they change their vote in accordance with voters. But they are in no way obligated to. So, in close races like this, they can ultimately decide who the nominee is. Sanders supporters are holding out for the superdelegates to suddenly switch over to him (like they did for Obama) if he were to sweep the western states (possible, but difficult). But that's the thing. They are not obligated to do so. The whole reason they exist is to override the public vote if the party deems it necessary.

 

And with Sanders not really being a Democrat -- just a Democratic Socialist who is running under their name while also criticizing the party itself -- there is absolutely no guarantee that the bulk of DNC superdelegates will switch to his side if the race remains within a few points. He would need to establish a notable lead for them to change their vote, and that could be tough. He could theoretically win more pledged delegates if things really go his way. But that won't matter if it's close and the superdelegates don't tilt. 

 

 

 

Which, I imagine, will cause a shit-storm amongst Democrats. Especially young ones.

 

It is a very un-democratic process, and I think it should be abolished. If your candidate can't win on their own, then that candidate should be less awful.

[Egann]

So basically, it's two notches better than the oldschool union "we use open votes, then if you didn't vote our way we send a mobster after you to ruin your day" thing. We'll inflate the voting pool so your vote doesn't matter.

 

The real problem isn't that the idea of it is undemocratic, but that it is massively open to corruption. Defining a candidate's "electability" is impossibly nebulous and I don't see how there can be any oversight on what parties do behind closed doors. Not the Democrat party after Watergate, anyway. 94.7% of superdelegates have promised to vote for Hillary. 95% agreement? I don't buy it. I don't have a clue what threats or promises her campaign has made, but I feel pretty sure that there have been a few.

 

 

I believe I've said before I think Drumpf will take a knee when he gets to the general election. Before, this was a hunch; Drumpf is a major business executive, not a politician, so he really has nothing to lose by taking a dive. Now, I have a conspiracy theorist idea on how he intends to do that.

 

Call her something demeaning to women on live TV.

 

Hillary is running on the identity politic of her being a woman, a schtick she nods to constantly because being black worked for Obama. Drumpf has already established a woman-hating posture; way back in the first debate he made a few rude comments to Megyn Kelly which seem awful misogynistic. Make one comment on the national stage which effects misogyny again and you make yourself into a monster while validating her identity politics. And the groundwork has been set for the "there were warning signs" trope.

Edited by Egann, 17 March 2016 - 03:00 PM.

[Sir Turtlelot]

I've never quite understood the extreme distaste for Hillary that my fellow liberals seem to have. Don't get me wrong, I'm 120% for Bernie this election, but Hillary is really no different for the most establishment politicians, untrustworthy and probably holds corporate interests over public ones. We sadly live in a world where those like Bernie are an exception to the rule, not the standard. But when it comes down to it, if Hillary wins, then not voting or voting third party is really only helping those like Drumpf and Cruz. Hell, the only remotely likable (and sane) Republican candidate left is Kasich, and if he's anything like his past two neighboring Republican Indiana governors, then he's still not someone I would ever vote for.

 

And yeah, the Superdelegate thing is bullshit. I have a feeling that Hillary wins solely because of them, then the Democratic party could see some similarly turbulent times ahead, similar to what the GOP is seeing now. Though hopefully less extreme.

[Selena]

 

Drumpf has already established a woman-hating posture; way back in the first debate he made a few rude comments to Megyn Kelly which seem awful misogynistic. Make one comment on the national stage which effects misogyny again and you make yourself into a monster while validating her identity politics

 

 

 

That would make sense in a conventional election, or if the electorate were sensible enough on their own.

 

But Drumpf's voters don't seem to care about things like that -- in fact, they often fully support his various attacks. Including the misogynist ones. Every time he launches some petty schoolyard vendetta against somebody, it generates more ratings and more support. And given how disliked Clinton is by Republicans, I'm sure any vile insults toward her would be met with laughter and applause. Not offense.

 

Seriously, Drumpf supporters are living Youtube/Facebook comments. And you know what people say about Clinton in the comments section of conservative pages. Drumpf could go on stage, call Michelle Obama a gorilla, and probably go up in the polls. 

 

If this was all a conspiracy or a scam, it has now reached The Producers status. Which was successfully made into a sketch on Jimmy Kimmel a while back. The flop is an unstoppable blockbuster. If Drumpf wants to throw the election, then he'd start being nicer, softer, and more compromising -- he wouldn't keep playing into precisely what the voters want.

 

As much as I'd like to believe it was a conspiracy, I'm fairly certain that this dude is a narcissist who gets a boner when crowds cheer for him and he's at the top of the ratings. Even if it means he has to appeal to the worst members of society. He was a nutter and a racist long before he ran for president. 

 

 

 

I've never quite understood the extreme distaste for Hillary that my fellow liberals seem to have.

 

Conversely, I've never seen the appeal any of the Clintons have with fellow liberals, but I guess that's a different strokes situation. I don't think she's a Disney villain or anything, but I definitely have major disagreements with her policies (especially her foreign policy). 

 

Still, the "Bernie or Bust" mentality could completely blow the election if young voters actually embrace it. If it were a more moderate conservative like McCain, I wouldn't be so worried, but Drumpf and Cruz are batshit lunatics. This is an all-hands-on-deck situation. We should be running drills to train people to rush to their local voting/caucus site. 

 

 

 

Semi-relevant: 

 

WA's Democratic Party pulls some questionable shenanigans up here, I've found out. I had always presumed that we all voted in the actual primary election. We get mail ballots, fill them out, then mail them back. Convenient. Democratic and Republican candidates are both on there. 

 

Turns out, it doesn't count if you're a Democrat. They only assign delegates at the public caucus and completely throw out the primary vote. They don't actually tell anyone this -- you have to go seek out answers on your own. So most people, especially young voters, have no idea they can't just vote in the open primary.

 

Our turnout for the general vote-by-mail primary: About 40%

Our turnout for the caucus: 7%

 

Naturally, it favors establishment Democrats and people who are tied to the party. Some bullshit!

[SteveT]

Hillary is running on the identity politic of her being a woman, a schtick she nods to constantly because being black worked for Obama

 

Hey now, hey now.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Vote for me because I'm black" wasn't part of Obama's official platform.  I can find debate clips of HC telling people to vote for her because she's a woman.  I don't remember Obama doing that.  I don't want to get in a debate about whether being black helped Obama win. I'm just saying that he didn't list it as a bullet point on why you should vote for him.

 

So if HC is trying to copy Obama's strategy, she's getting it wrong.

[Twinrova]

My distaste for Hillary comes from seeing the light of what we *could* have in the form of Bernie. I've never fully agreed with any Democratic candidate, and have mostly voted for them because I'll die before I vote Republican (though I did rather like Obama). But man, I have liked every single thing that's come out of Bernie's mouth, and I'm mad as hell I'm probably not going to get him as my President. That's just me though.

[Egann]

 

 

 

Drumpf has already established a woman-hating posture; way back in the first debate he made a few rude comments to Megyn Kelly which seem awful misogynistic. Make one comment on the national stage which effects misogyny again and you make yourself into a monster while validating her identity politics

 

 

 

That would make sense in a conventional election, or if the electorate were sensible enough on their own.

 

But Drumpf's voters don't seem to care about things like that -- in fact, they often fully support his various attacks. Including the misogynist ones. Every time he launches some petty schoolyard vendetta against somebody, it generates more ratings and more support. And given how disliked Clinton is by Republicans, I'm sure any vile insults toward her would be met with laughter and applause. Not offense.

 

Seriously, Drumpf supporters are living Youtube/Facebook comments. And you know what people say about Clinton in the comments section of conservative pages. Drumpf could go on stage, call Michelle Obama a gorilla, and probably go up in the polls. 

 

If this was all a conspiracy or a scam, it has now reached The Producers status. Which was successfully made into a sketch on Jimmy Kimmel a while back. The flop is an unstoppable blockbuster. If Drumpf wants to throw the election, then he'd start being nicer, softer, and more compromising -- he wouldn't keep playing into precisely what the voters want.

 

As much as I'd like to believe it was a conspiracy, I'm fairly certain that this dude is a narcissist who gets a boner when crowds cheer for him and he's at the top of the ratings. Even if it means he has to appeal to the worst members of society. He was a nutter and a racist long before he ran for president. 

 

This is sadly true. Or at least partially true. Sadly, the ordinary American voter is a euphamism for a thoughtless cesspool, regardless of which side of the equation you look at.

 

I say partially true because, while you can draw huge crowds and raise a lot of money with a cult of personality, the best it will do for Drumpf in particular is cause him to NOT lose it. United States elections work by asking a question; who stayed home more, the moderate left or moderate right? 

 

So, will Drumpf's hardcore following vote for him, regardless of what he does? This is a no-brainer; they will. But then again, they would have voted for anyone with an R, and there are Hillary/ Bernie supporters who will do the exact same thing with candidates with a D. Let's just say the insane left and insane right cancel and have no net effect on the election.

 

The moderates, however, are different. Consultants typically say that you win or lose elections by "swing" voters who jump across party lines, but my intuition says most moderates have a lean. They either vote for their party or not at all. True swing voters are probably rare.

 

TL;DR: If Drumpf says something really offensive, rest assured he will lose moderate republican votes. There's no amount of cult of personality which can stop that.

 

 

That said, it is possible for him to win the election despite losing moderate republican votes. It comes down to the moderate democrats. Many moderate democrats don't really like Hillary, Bernie was a hopeful who got dashed on the rocks, and Obama has not been the best president. All those could depress moderate democrat turnout for Hillary.

 

The real proof will come the day after the election. If Democrat turnout is less than it was in 2012, Hillary slashed and burned herself into the nomination and out of the Presidency.

 

Either way, I'm resigned to another 8 years of terrible presidency.

 

 

Hillary is running on the identity politic of her being a woman, a schtick she nods to constantly because being black worked for Obama

 

Hey now, hey now.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Vote for me because I'm black" wasn't part of Obama's official platform.  I can find debate clips of HC telling people to vote for her because she's a woman.  I don't remember Obama doing that.  I don't want to get in a debate about whether being black helped Obama win. I'm just saying that he didn't list it as a bullet point on why you should vote for him.

 

So if HC is trying to copy Obama's strategy, she's getting it wrong.

 

 

True, but people voted for Obama because he's black and Hillary took notice. "Vote for me; I'm not cis" is not a solid explicit platform plank. At best it's shallow. At worst, it's it's own breed of racist or sexist. That said, it often guides the marketing and strategies to garner votes. See Sara Palin VP candidacy.

 

The best way to use this is not by making it explicit, but by making the other guy into a villain. That way you don't need to say anything about yourself; you can leave it implied.

 

WA's Democratic Party pulls some questionable shenanigans up here, I've found out. I had always presumed that we all voted in the actual primary election. We get mail ballots, fill them out, then mail them back. Convenient. Democratic and Republican candidates are both on there. 

 

Turns out, it doesn't count if you're a Democrat. They only assign delegates at the public caucus and completely throw out the primary vote. They don't actually tell anyone this -- you have to go seek out answers on your own. So most people, especially young voters, have no idea they can't just vote in the open primary.

 

Our turnout for the general vote-by-mail primary: About 40%

Our turnout for the caucus: 7%

 

Naturally, it favors establishment Democrats and people who are tied to the party. Some bullshit!

 

 

Wait, so there's a fake election by mail just to weed out the riff-raff? Who even comes up with these ideas?

 

I'm speechless. How did you even find out? Something makes me doubt this is contained to just Democrats in Washington.

[Selena]

My mother went to a local Bernie campaign meeting, where trained representatives coached everyone about how the process works. After checking into the details, it's true. New voters are never informed -- frankly, this was the first time I had heard of it. But it's all there in the fine print. 

 

We're primarily a vote-by-mail state. Every election we have -- be it local, statewide, or federal -- is done by mail. We get a ballot, have a few weeks to fill it out, and then mail it back before the deadline. It makes the voting process easier and more convenient. The Democratic primary is the only vote that is done differently. And purely because the party wants it that way. Without telling anyone. You have to attend a caucus in person in order for your vote to count.

 

The WA Republican party assigns their delegates in the general primary in May, using the mail ballot. They have attempted to move the general primary to March, and have urged the Democrats to abolish the caucus (good idea) and just use the already-being-sent-out-anyway mail ballot. Every time, WA Democrats have blocked their attempts to change the process.

 

The Democratic Party claims it's because they "value the open dialogue and direct involvement" of the caucus system. But by keeping the Republican primary pushed back to May, they ensure that the WA Republican vote is almost entirely meaningless. That's the real reason. And to have more direct party control over the Democratic primary. So, because the Dems are in charge of the WA Senate, nothing changes. Because everything is working in the party's favor. Especially since most voters don't realize they have to go to the caucus.

 

So, as a result, the Democratic candidates all appear on the mail ballot -- and you can vote for either Bernie or Hillary on that ballot -- but it will be completely and utterly meaningless. 

 

 

 

(** Although in the fine print, the Democrats technically say they may consider the primary ballots when assigning delegates. But that's almost never the case for the pledged delegates, who are all assigned after the caucus. Only superdelegates might be swayed, but again, they are not compelled to.)

 

 

IT IS SO STUPID.

 

I don't know if it would be likely to happen everywhere, since there are only a few states that have a vote-by-mail system, but I would double check to be safe if you're in a dual primary/caucus state.

[Delphi]

Not a Democrat or a Republican really at this point. Just Republican this particular year instead of Independent to help a county commissioner candidate get into the polls via signatures that require registered Republican voters. Because no one in Southern Utah could win on anything but a Republican ticket sorry to say.

But my views on Hillary are that I just plain don't trust her. Yes a lot of candidates will flip flop to get votes (see accusations against Romney last election) but I see Hillary having the opposite problem Drumpf does. Drumpf runs at the mouth and people that like that kind of drivel lap it up. Hillary says whatever is popular at the time and then will immediately flip on the issue if tides turn. So I really can't get a feel for what she really stands for. Will she do something that will negatively impact the country just because someone leans on her hard enough and convinces her that's what's popular right now?

She also doesn't seem the most technologically savvy individual. I've liked and disliked things about Obama's presidency but one thing I've definitely come to respect in his time is that he understands the rapidly changing world of technology, especially the internet, better than most politicians out there. He actively took a stance on SOPA that showed he understood the ramifications of such a blunt force law. Look at other politicians during the time SOPA was a threat and see how completely uneducated they were. I don't know if I can trust Hillary to have the same understanding of technology after that server security debacle.

Bernie has ideas that do make me nervous but I'd vote for him an infinite number of times before voting for Drumpf. More importantly regarding my last point, Bernie has shown he or at least someone very close to him if it isn't him knows how today's technology works. Given the impact of social media on his rise to prominence I'm very impressed with how well he's played that angle. He gets it.

The reason this is important to me is because signs are showing were coming to the end of an era regarding the internet. We're coming out of the new technology wild west as the internet becomes required to do basic things like find and apply for a job. New laws and regulations are on the horizon. I want someone who understands the technology to be the one with the veto stamp. So if someone tries to push something like SOPA through again I know that when it gets to the executive level it's not going to pass just because they don't understand it. Someone who understands how things actually work would (ideally) veto the bill and send it back with a "shame on you for not researching" note. I can't see Hillary doing this. Especially considering some of her less than researched statements about video games over the time she's been in the limelight and not just as Bill's first lady. Remember she threw her weight behind Jack Thompson at one point. Very poorly researched decision.

So with that history in mind she makes me nervous as the president that will help in a new era of technology. However while she makes me nervous, Drumpf outright terrifies me as the one heading that ship so she's still the better option in that case if Bernie doesn't get in.

[Selena]

 

 However while she makes me nervous, Drumpf outright terrifies me as the one heading that ship so she's still the better option in that case if Bernie doesn't get in. 

 

 

"But we can just... shut down parts of twitter to keep us safe from terrorists who are using it to communicate! I'm not sure how, exactly, but I can put a fantastic team of people together to shut it down."

 

"Boycott Apple for not caving to government demands that they create a universal open-sesame key for iPhones!"

 

 

 

I don't know what you're talking about, everything will be fine. 

[JRPomazon]

If Drumpf gets elected and tries to run this country in a way he's been talking about running it, I can almost say with total certainty that he'll be impeached. He'll get a bunch of different branches of Government saying they won't go along with his three ring circus and he'll try to "fire them" as if they work for him. Give him a serious of problematic months and by the end of that year he'll be given his walking papers. Despite it being the most powerful seat in the house, the checks and balances should be able to prevent a total monster from completely fucking everything up.

Edited by JRPomazon, 18 March 2016 - 12:03 AM.

[Egann]

My mother went to a local Bernie campaign meeting, where trained representatives coached everyone about how the process works. After checking into the details, it's true. New voters are never informed -- frankly, this was the first time I had heard of it. But it's all there in the fine print. 

 

We're primarily a vote-by-mail state. Every election we have -- be it local, statewide, or federal -- is done by mail. We get a ballot, have a few weeks to fill it out, and then mail it back before the deadline. It makes the voting process easier and more convenient. The Democratic primary is the only vote that is done differently. And purely because the party wants it that way. Without telling anyone. You have to attend a caucus in person in order for your vote to count.

 

The WA Republican party assigns their delegates in the general primary in May, using the mail ballot. They have attempted to move the general primary to March, and have urged the Democrats to abolish the caucus (good idea) and just use the already-being-sent-out-anyway mail ballot. Every time, WA Democrats have blocked their attempts to change the process.

 

The Democratic Party claims it's because they "value the open dialogue and direct involvement" of the caucus system. But by keeping the Republican primary pushed back to May, they ensure that the WA Republican vote is almost entirely meaningless. That's the real reason. And to have more direct party control over the Democratic primary. So, because the Dems are in charge of the WA Senate, nothing changes. Because everything is working in the party's favor. Especially since most voters don't realize they have to go to the caucus.

 

So, as a result, the Democratic candidates all appear on the mail ballot -- and you can vote for either Bernie or Hillary on that ballot -- but it will be completely and utterly meaningless. 

 

 

 

(** Although in the fine print, the Democrats technically say they may consider the primary ballots when assigning delegates. But that's almost never the case for the pledged delegates, who are all assigned after the caucus. Only superdelegates might be swayed, but again, they are not compelled to.)

 

 

IT IS SO STUPID.

 

I don't know if it would be likely to happen everywhere, since there are only a few states that have a vote-by-mail system, but I would double check to be safe if you're in a dual primary/caucus state.

 

 

I have always gone manually to the caucuses; I think elections should be treated like photo-finishes. Besides, there was a problem where a few republican candidates dropped out of the race between the start of mail-in ballots and the caucus, meaning their supporters wasted their votes. You never know what will happen.

 

That said...keeping the Republican caucus back is a silly reason to do that. Washington doesn't appear on the state total party register, so I can't directly compare numbers, but isn't Washington a strongly democratic state? There probably aren't enough regular republican voters in the state to significantly affect the republican caucus, anyway, so the benefit is inconsequential and the risk of a "we don't count your votes" scandal is pretty significant.

 

I really don't get it. Politics 101 is that you don't take unnecessary risks.

 

Not a Democrat or a Republican really at this point. Just Republican this particular year instead of Independent to help a county commissioner candidate get into the polls via signatures that require registered Republican voters. Because no one in Southern Utah could win on anything but a Republican ticket sorry to say.

But my views on Hillary are that I just plain don't trust her. Yes a lot of candidates will flip flop to get votes (see accusations against Romney last election) but I see Hillary having the opposite problem Drumpf does. Drumpf runs at the mouth and people that like that kind of drivel lap it up. Hillary says whatever is popular at the time and then will immediately flip on the issue if tides turn. So I really can't get a feel for what she really stands for. Will she do something that will negatively impact the country just because someone leans on her hard enough and convinces her that's what's popular right now?

She also doesn't seem the most technologically savvy individual. I've liked and disliked things about Obama's presidency but one thing I've definitely come to respect in his time is that he understands the rapidly changing world of technology, especially the internet, better than most politicians out there. He actively took a stance on SOPA that showed he understood the ramifications of such a blunt force law. Look at other politicians during the time SOPA was a threat and see how completely uneducated they were. I don't know if I can trust Hillary to have the same understanding of technology after that server security debacle.

Bernie has ideas that do make me nervous but I'd vote for him an infinite number of times before voting for Drumpf. More importantly regarding my last point, Bernie has shown he or at least someone very close to him if it isn't him knows how today's technology works. Given the impact of social media on his rise to prominence I'm very impressed with how well he's played that angle. He gets it.

The reason this is important to me is because signs are showing were coming to the end of an era regarding the internet. We're coming out of the new technology wild west as the internet becomes required to do basic things like find and apply for a job. New laws and regulations are on the horizon. I want someone who understands the technology to be the one with the veto stamp. So if someone tries to push something like SOPA through again I know that when it gets to the executive level it's not going to pass just because they don't understand it. Someone who understands how things actually work would (ideally) veto the bill and send it back with a "shame on you for not researching" note. I can't see Hillary doing this. Especially considering some of her less than researched statements about video games over the time she's been in the limelight and not just as Bill's first lady. Remember she threw her weight behind Jack Thompson at one point. Very poorly researched decision.

So with that history in mind she makes me nervous as the president that will help in a new era of technology. However while she makes me nervous, Drumpf outright terrifies me as the one heading that ship so she's still the better option in that case if Bernie doesn't get in.

 

No one in Washington does any research. Obama parroted the line "like your insurance? Keep it," ad nauseum, even though a number of think-tanks and fact-checking establishments disagreed and said that was impossible because the mandate would drastically alter the market. As it turns out, it WAS impossible, so when the mandate rolled around, several million people got dropped from their healthcare.

 

The bottom line is you cannot trust politicians to do even basic fact-checking. Washington doesn't really care if a bill will have the desired effect, and they almost never revisit a bill once it's passed.

 

 

 

 

 However while she makes me nervous, Drumpf outright terrifies me as the one heading that ship so she's still the better option in that case if Bernie doesn't get in. 

 

 

"But we can just... shut down parts of twitter to keep us safe from terrorists who are using it to communicate! I'm not sure how, exactly, but I can put a fantastic team of people together to shut it down."

 

"Boycott Apple for not caving to government demands that they create a universal open-sesame key for iPhones!"

 

 

 

I don't know what you're talking about, everything will be fine. 

 

 

You know, about the twitter thing, a pro-gamergate youtube channel TL;DR did a 4 hour internet research stream about the twitter safety council.

 

His bottom line is that about 1/3rd of the organizations involved are proxies of the European Commission, and he believes--tin foil hat time--it's part of a plan to censor the internet. Feminist Frequency, despite being a limelight organization, is ironically not one of those proxies. TL;DR doesn't say so, but it's possible Feminist Frequency is on the twitter safety council as a distraction and tank for the European Commission's proxies.

 

I'm torn. I'm not sure I believe the "censor the net" thing, and I'm not sure I care about twitter committing seppuku via shadowbans, anyway. That said, TL;DR's homework connecting some of them to the European Commission is a pretty solid bit of internet sleuthing. 

[Selena]

 

That said...keeping the Republican caucus back is a silly reason to do that. Washington doesn't appear on the state total party register, so I can't directly compare numbers, but isn't Washington a strongly democratic state? There probably aren't enough regular republican voters in the state to significantly affect the republican caucus, anyway, so the benefit is inconsequential and the risk of a "we don't count your votes" scandal is pretty significant.

 

 

Kind of. General rule of thumb for Oregon and Washington: West side = heavily Democrat, east side = heavily Republican. The west is metropolitan, the east is farmland. The bulk of our population is on the west side, so Democrats pretty much rule the state government. That said, we've had some very close races for governor. Close as in "endless recounts for over a month" close. So Republicans obviously have enough sway to make the local establishment worry from time to time. 

[Selena]

So, Arizona voter fraud scandal: Just a giant fuck-up or something deliberate and malicious?

 

 

Quick background for those unfamiliar: Lifelong Democrat voters waited in line to vote for hours on end, only to learn that many of them had somehow been re-registered as "Independents" this year, meaning that they were not allowed to vote in the Democratic primary at all (as AZ is a closed primary). This was coupled with a sharp reduction in available polling places, forcing some people to travel outside their county even to reach a place to vote -- making things infinitely more difficult for the elderly, poor, and disabled.

 

Coincidentally, it seems that most of the voters who were suddenly re-registered as Independents were Sanders supporters.

[Egann]

It's an interesting situation. I think it's pretty safe to say that there was voter fraud, but I don't think Hillary did it is a satisfying answer.

 

The proof of the pudding comes from this article. "Ugenti-Rita expressed disbelief that they would go from 403 polling locations in a similar election in 2008 to just 60 this year."  That's a 85% reduction. An 85% cut is a big cut; too big, in fact.

 

My patent-pending Conspiro-Vision thinks Hillary isn't doing it. Well, not the only one, anyway. She's probably going to reap windfalls, but you don't cut 85% of precincts in a district and expect it to go unnoticed. It's clumsy and far too ham-handed. Somebody wants this to get national press very badly, and if your goal is to siphon off a few votes, you should be allergic to attention.

 

My theory? This is retribution for the Supreme Court overturning the Voting Rights Act. If you're not familiar, from the mid 60's to 2013, any and every voting change in the South (and Arizona) had to be approved by the US Federal Government, no matter how insignificant. In 2013, the Supreme Court found there to be no solid reason for continuing this, and struck it down in a contested 5-4 decision no one outside of the South (and Arizona) heard about.

 

So, what do you do if you are really angry about that? That's right. Create a scandal in the very next election. Hillary's campaign may have been in the loop, but I doubt they're too blame.

Edited by Egann, 29 March 2016 - 10:15 PM.

[JRPomazon]

AND THIS JUICY BIT FROM THE CAPITAL JUST SHOWED UP:

http://www.usnews.co...rs-of-dc-ballot

 

So he didn't even show up on the ballots for voters in DC. Sanders' people submitted their stuff on time and yet something along the way tripped up? Could the DNC be any more transparent just how unwilling they are to have Sanders running in their election?

[Egann]

So, many of you will probably have kittens over this video, but I do think it's worth watching because it explains a lot of things.

 

Trigger warning: Sargon is massive pro-gamergate. 

 

I'm not entirely sure how to put this, but for the past few years I've gotten a feeling that the United States is headed for a big change, like the United States is at the Ides of March. And judging from the opinions on this thread, I don't think I'm the only one getting these vibes, either.