[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm pretty sure that's amnesty, not Amnesty. Even the first is a little incredible, actually...

Why?

 

[Quakebass]

This kind of thing frustrates me.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-dem-primary-system-rigged-against-voters-663318083925

Bernie gets 56% of the Wyoming vote, and yet, Hillary gets effectively ~60% of the delegates. There's a very strong irony in the party being called "democratic".

 

[squadops]

no one ever claimed it was a democracy.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This kind of thing frustrates me.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-dem-primary-system-rigged-against-voters-663318083925

Bernie gets 56% of the vote, and yet, Hillary gets effectively ~60% of the delegates. There's a very strong irony in the party being called "democratic".

We've been talking about this on and off through the entire thread. The DNC and RNC are both openly (one more so than the other) telling the nation and the world, that the people being voted for are not the people the populous wants. And this I feel basically destroys the idea of voting in the first place. As I've said all along what is the great point, if the two on the ballot were hand picked based on a committee in the first place and not actual votes?

Schultz has been caught with her pants down on Super delegates and their use for the party alone and not that of the people.

 

[mustafur]

no one ever claimed it was a democracy.

Yeah im pretty sure they have.

 

[squadops]

Then they would be incorrect.

 

[Sanji Himura]

We've been talking about this on and off through the entire thread. The DNC and RNC are both openly (one more so than the other) telling the nation and the world, that the people being voted for are not the people the populous wants. And this I feel basically destroys the idea of voting in the first place. As I've said all along what is the great point, if the two on the ballot were hand picked based on a committee in the first place and not actual votes?

It's been like that since before Teddy. The primary system that we know today is suggested by him.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why?

In terms of Amnesty they've spoken out pretty strongly against Trump. As for amnesty... does his (vague) foreign or immigration policy talk suggest political amnesty of any kind taking place in any sphere? He pushed for war in Libya and now his comments easily lead one to believe that he'd even threaten military force against Mexico. That's not a platform for amnesty.

 

[Sanji Himura]

In terms of Amnesty they've spoken out pretty strongly against Trump. As for amnesty... does his (vague) foreign or immigration policy talk suggest political amnesty of any kind taking place in any sphere? He pushed for war in Libya and now his comments easily lead one to believe that he'd even threaten military force against Mexico. That's not a platform for amnesty.

No, it speaks of the pattern that he hires illegals at his hotels and resorts to undercut American jobs.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

The DNC and RNC are both openly (one more so than the other) telling the nation and the world, that the people being voted for are not the people the populous wants.

This hasn't been the case in the democratic race, to date at least.

 

[mustafur]

Wonder how much Sanders has lost out from Closed Primarys.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This hasn't been the case in the democratic race, to date at least.

Yes it has? What race have you been following, that number above tells what exactly, other than at what @mustafur has alluded too. Sure Sanders has won a few closed but not many. The DNC has openly opposed Sanders, Schultz has made it a key point to make sure the DNC fully backs Clinton and in general it's not surprising. If all primaries were open or at least a smaller portion were closed to weigh the general popularity and not that, of a populous vote among a heavy democratic crowd.

As I said the GOP is more vocal on the matter but the DNC has shown and said enough to let the public know who they want to be the nominee. Which is why certain DNC higher members have left to join the cause for Bernie.

It's been like that since before Teddy. The primary system that we know today is suggested by him.

While that may be the case more or less, it wasn't nearly this bad during that time frame of American Politics.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

that number above tells what exactly

The number of people that have voted for each candidate. I presume the popular vote is fairly relevant in working out who the populous wants.

If all primaries were open or at least a smaller portion were closed to weigh the general popularity and not that, of a populous vote among a heavy democratic crowd.

Quick and rough calculations here but if we only consider open primary states that have voted so far I think these are the vote / pledged delegate totals:

Clinton: 5,497,189 / 678

Sanders: 3,934,704 / 441

And if the other contests run so far were to change from closed/semi-closed to open, this would need to increase Bernie's delegate take by about 35% in order to match Hillary's pledged amount.

So no, I don't see how based on the results so far that the voting public haven't been siding with the DNC's person of choice.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The number of people that have voted for each candidate. I presume the popular vote is fairly relevant in working out who the populous wants.

For the DNC sure...for the national election no. When 25 of the States who hold primaries do so in a closed primary, then all you get is registered democrats. Who most times will vote based on who the DNC is pushing on them as the candidate the DNC wishes to fulfill the party platform. Sanders isn't this model.

Quick and rough calculations here but if we only consider open primary states that have voted so far I think these are the vote / pledged delegate totals:

Clinton: 5,497,189 / 678

Sanders: 3,934,704 / 441

And if the other contests run so far were to change from closed/semi-closed to open, this would need to increase Bernie's delegate take by about 35% in order to match Hillary's pledged amount.

So no, I don't see how based on the results so far that the voting public haven't been siding with the DNC's person of choice.

Not sure how you calculated it to be honest, I could have done my own version and had something along the lines of Sanders edging on Clinton. The issue that you miss is that you have both parties putting themselves in the way of a national election when all they should be are the people that set up the tents and tell the public these are the people who are running under the banner of such. Nothing more than that. When you have an active group trying to derail other candidates in the party they don't favor, what's the point of the election. If this was just a solid run and Clinton was winning on merit alone and not superior backing I could see your point. However, you have claims of voter suppression in states, as well as voter fraud and them being investigated. These are serious problems and claims. If you want to look at it as a number based thing without any real substance other than that. I guess Clinton is the come all end all candidate.

In terms of Amnesty they've spoken out pretty strongly against Trump. As for amnesty... does his (vague) foreign or immigration policy talk suggest political amnesty of any kind taking place in any sphere? He pushed for war in Libya and now his comments easily lead one to believe that he'd even threaten military force against Mexico. That's not a platform for amnesty.

What comments exactly? I agree with you on the policies of the Middle East he takes up but I haven't seen rhetoric suggesting he'd openly act Mexico, then again I haven't actively looked for it. However, I'd still like to see it cause I'm not all that surprised with the amnesty claims.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Donald Trump Actually Defending Bernie Sanders for Being an "Outsider":

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Donald Trump Actually Defending Bernie Sanders for Being an "Outsider":

Hate him or love him, he's right. There is a rigged system in play, where the more cozy you are to the party you establish yourself with the more they'll set you up to be President. But if you come from the "outside" and say "well my core values seem to align with party x, and if I want to be President and make a difference I feel I can make then I have to be with party x or y." Despite the fact that there is a great number of unregistered in no party voters, these disenfranchised usually don't give a rat's ass one way or the other, because they probably see it the same way Trump described it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Donald Trump Actually Defending Bernie Sanders for Being an "Outsider":

Makes sense. Trump's plan (as it stands) is to be the Republican candidate. It makes sense for him to destroy as much of the opposition as possible. If that means pumping Sanders up against Clinton then so be it.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

When 25 of the States who hold primaries do so in a closed primary, then all you get is registered democrats, who most times will vote based on who the DNC is pushing on them as the candidate the DNC wishes to fulfill the party platform.

Personally I don't have a problem with people registered with a party getting to decide the candidate to represent that party, but I guess that's another discussion. As I said above, just looking at open contests still appears to show people going for Clinton so far.

Not sure how you calculated it to be honest

Just added up the votes/pledged delegates for the 13 primaries that have been held which are labelled "open" on the wiki page (ignored ones labelled semi-open/closed because I'm not sure what those mean exactly). Double checked the numbers and I'm fairly sure they're correct. If you have Sanders edging Clinton in open primaries that's a h̶u̶g̶e̶ yuge difference, I'd be grateful if you could share your calculation in case I've gone very wrong somewhere.

The issue that you miss is that you have both parties putting themselves in the way of a national election when all they should be are the people that set up the tents and tell the public these are the people who are running under the banner of such. Nothing more than that.

However, you have claims of voter suppression in states, as well as voter fraud and them being investigated. These are serious problems and claims.

Fully agree it can be a dangerous thing for a party establishment to intefere with the democratic process and voter fraud/suppression is serious, if those claims are true.

Have these factors affected the race to the extent that you suggest the voters actually want Sanders, not Clinton?

If you want to look at it as a number based thing without any real substance other than that. I guess Clinton is the come all end all candidate.

Not defending Clinton (as if I'd do that on the internet even if I wanted to, I'd be eaten alive ), I just take issue with the suggestion that Sanders has been the voters' choice, which in my opinion isn't reflected in the results so far by any measure.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Makes sense. Trump's plan (as it stands) is to be the Republican candidate. It makes sense for him to destroy as much of the opposition as possible. If that means pumping Sanders up against Clinton then so be it.

This is why I asked you the question I did partially. Cause it seems you don't really take anything Trump says for face value, which is fine most of the time, but considering Trumps rhetoric about the parties I'd say this is as genuine as you'll get. I think he does feel for Bernie despite what gains are to be made by saying it.

Personally I don't have a problem with people registered with a party getting to decide the candidate to represent that party, but I guess that's another discussion. As I said above, just looking at open contests still appears to show people going for Clinton so far.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying it's fine that they do, but let them do it, not a bunch of chairs who are current or former politicians themselves, selecting their buddy. Then telling group of registered voters this person has their interest at heart, because it's their buddy. Like I said if you want to let me in on your mathematics so I can digest it myself rather than trust your numbers alone (no matter how much of friends we are), then that'd be great.

Just added up the votes/pledged delegates for the 13 primaries that have been held which are labelled "open" on the wiki page (ignored ones labelled semi-open/closed because I'm not sure what those mean exactly). Double checked the numbers and I'm fairly sure they're correct. If you have Sanders edging Clinton in open primaries that's a h̶u̶g̶e̶ yuge difference, I'd be grateful if you could share your calculation in case I've gone very wrong somewhere.

What calculations I have yet to do any myself, because of said variables that can't really be accounted for.

Fully agree it can be a dangerous thing for a party establishment to intefere with the democratic process and voter fraud/suppression is serious, if those claims are true.

Have these factors affected the race to the extent that you suggest the voters actually want Sanders, not Clinton?

Considering the closed Primary in Arizona was a big battle ground on Western Tuesday, and the amount of push Bernie put their to actually win, yeah it's a big deal. And has been locally for many here.

As for the voter fraud since it's so vague as to the scope, I probably shouldn't even use it as a key point cause it could vary from districts and who knows how impacting one district is over another if it were in fact true. Despite it being wrong no matter where it happens. So I really don't know myself, and for that I apologize even though I probably couldn't know either way.

Not defending Clinton (as if I'd do that on the internet even if I wanted to, I'd be eaten alive ), I just take issue with the suggestion that Sanders has been the voters' choice, which in my opinion isn't reflected in the results so far by any measure.

Then that is my fault for taking it that way, so I apologize and should have looked at it more rational in that sense. I'm not necessarily trying to say Sander's is the choice of the people, just that there is a system in play that is trying to derail him, just as the RNC is doing to Trump. Rather than giving respect to their presence. I'm just not a fan of establishments picking favorite and then sugar coating it as the "people have spoken".

As others know I'm third party/libertarian in nature to begin with so I don't really care other than grounds of morality, voting rights being far diminished, and perpetuating a 🤬 system that only gets worse during the general.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Countdown to Cleveland

This is an organizational post for the purposes of informing you how the delegates in remaining contests will be distributed. Information comes from The Weekly Standard website.

Definitions:

Ceiling: is a minimum level of support that is required to make a race a winner take all

Floor: A minimum level of support to earn any delegates.

April 19 - New York (95 Delegates)
14 Delegates will be distributed on a proportional basis, with a 50% ceiling based on State wide results. The remaining 81 delegates are split three each between New York's 27 congressional districts to be distributed on a proportional basis based on district results with a 50% ceiling.

April 26 - Connecticut (28 Delegates)
Proportional with a 50% ceiling.

April 26 - Delaware (16 Delegates)
Winner Take All.

April 26 - Rhode Island (19 Delegates)
Proportional.

April 26 - Maryland (38 Delegates)
Winner Take All based on both Statewide and congressional district results.

April 26 - Pennsylvania (71 Delegates)
17 delegates are awarded to the winner of the state wide vote, however the remaining 54 are awarded by way of Direct Election of the delegate themselves through congressional district. Ballots for your congressional district delegates will NOT list the candidate that they support.

May 3 - Indiana (57 Delegates)
Winner Take All based on statewide results (30) and congressional districts (27).

May 10 - Nebraska (36 Delegates)
Winner Take All.

May 10 - West Virginia (34 Delegates)
25 to be distributed based on statewide results (Winner Take All). The remaining 9 will be split 3 each to the 3 congressional districts (Winner Take All).

May 17 - Oregon (28 Delegates)
Proportional. However, a 20 point victory in the state will give the winner 6 more delegates than the runner-up.

May 24 - Washington State (44 Delegates)
14 are distributed proportionally based on statewide results. The remaining 30 will be split between the 10 congressional districts with a 50% ceiling and a 20% floor (in this case it only applies when a candidate fails to meet the 50% ceiling).

June 7 - New Mexico (24 Delegates)
Proportional.

June 7 - New Jersey (51 Delegates)
Winner Take All.

June 7 - South Dakota (29 Delegates)
Winner Take All.

June 7 - Montana (27 Delegates)
Winner Take All.

June 7 - California (172 Delegates)
13 Delegates will go to the Statewide winner (Winner Take All.) The remaining 159 will be split among the state's 53 congressional districts, Winner Take All.

Projected Unbound Delegates: 150-200

 

[The87Dodge]

To be honest, I think every candidate running right now is complete garbage, except for Bernie Sanders. Bernie, out of everyone, seems like the only sensible, logical choice. He's the only candidate where I agree with almost everything he says. He's a strong, knowledgeable, wise, honest man with a plan. Sure, many of the people he appeals to are millennials who are eco-hippes and shop at Whole Foods, but I'd consider myself to be that way. Free college, living wages for all workers, equal pay act, feminism, and higher taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the poor are some things I support that Bernie wants. If any president will "Make America Great Again", it will be him.

This is my second year where I am able to vote. I consider my self to be a far-left Liberal "hippie" and no wonder why Bernie appeals to people like me. Hillary Clinton seems like a dishonest, weak, and all-talk-no-plan version of Sanders. Based on what I know about her, she seems like she will destroy the economy and make other stupid decisions that both Liberals and Conservatives will outrage over. Hillary Clinton, she just seems awfully weak to me, and a country like America should not have a leader that is weak.

And don't even let me get started about the Conservative candidates. Donny Drumpf, the frontrunner, would be the biggest joke and the worst ****ing politician America will have, no doubt. He is very mean, a bigot, racist, and is shaming people all the time. He acts like all Muslims are terrorists and all Mexicans are drug addicts and rapists, so he wants to ban Muslim immigration and build a massive wall (that I call Great Wall of America) around the southern border, both of which I disagree with. He is a cold hearted person with hotels that have gone bankrupt multiple times, so there's no chance of him Making America Great Again. And America already is great. Therefore, disliking Trump is not only a political choice, but also an ethical choice.

Ted Cruz, is nothing but a liar. He is all talk and no action. He spends more time picking on and berating Donald Drumpf (not defending Drumpf in any way) than actually focusing on his own campaign, and complains how the Conservative party is divided and not the way it should be. John Kasich, who doesn't have a shot at being President, seems to only care about Ohio and not the rest of the country. He should just stay as the Governor of Ohio.

I really, really do hope that Bernie becomes our President. He, in my eyes, is the leader that our country deserves. He will certainly get America back on track, and changing it for the better. Bernie has been winning states a t a higher rate than Hillary these days, lets hope he can get more delegates than her, too.

Feel The Bern!!!

 

[Swagger897]

John Kasich, who doesn't have a shot at being President, seems to only care about Ohio and not the rest of the country.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the point of being governor?

 

[The87Dodge]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the point of being governor?

It is the point of being governor, not the point of being President. A good President will focus on all parts of the country, not just the parts he favors or knows best.

 

[Swagger897]

It is the point of being governor, not the point of being President. A good President will focus on all parts of the country, not just the parts he favors or knows best.

But he's not president.... so why at this point should he act like he is?

 

[The87Dodge]

But he's not president.... so why at this point should he act like he is?

Because if he is running for President, he should also show how he'd act as President, along with the improvements he'd make to our country.

 

[Swagger897]

Because if he is running for President, he should also show how he'd act as President, along with the improvements he'd make to our country.

So what you're saying is that he's in the wrong for doing all the good things he did in Ohio, and while in DC and him saying that he'd only repeat that, is somehow showing selfishness towards Ohio?

You might want to rethink that..

 

[The87Dodge]

So what you're saying is that he's in the wrong for doing all the good things he did in Ohio, and while in DC and him saying that he'd only repeat that, is somehow showing selfishness towards Ohio?

You might want to rethink that..

He was very beneficial to the state of Ohio, I just thing he talks about his accomplishments more than he should during rallies.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It is the point of being governor, not the point of being President. A good President will focus on all parts of the country, not just the parts he favors or knows best.

That's not at all why he's there. The establishment likes him more than Trump, feels there are certain states left where if Cruz can't beat Trump Kasich should be able to. He won Ohio cause he's their governor, not because he only cares about them more than any other state. Every other state just doesn't care about a guy that hardly gets face time compared to "Can't keep it in his pants" Ted and the Orange dude.

He was very beneficial to the state of Ohio, I just thing he talks about his accomplishments more than he should during rallies.

Do tell how does one become president if not to brag about what they did in previous Executive or Legislative positions of power?

 

[Sanji Himura]

To be honest, I think every candidate running right now is complete garbage, except for Bernie Sanders. Bernie, out of everyone, seems like the only sensible, logical choice. He's the only candidate where I agree with almost everything he says. He's a strong, knowledgeable, wise, honest man with a plan. Sure, most of the people he appeals to are millennials who are eco-hippes and shop at Whole Foods, but I'd consider myself to be that way. Free college, living wages for all workers, equal pay act, feminism, and higher taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the poor are some things I support that Bernie wants. If any president will "Make America Great Again", it will be him.

This is my second year where I am able to vote. I consider my self to be a far-left Liberal "hippie" and no wonder why Bernie appeals to people like me. Hillary Clinton seems like a dishonest, weak, and all-talk-no-plan version of Sanders. Based on what I know about her, she seems like she will destroy the economy and make other stupid decisions that both Liberals and Conservatives will outrage over. Hillary Clinton, she just seems awfully weak to me, and a country like America should not have a leader that is weak.

And don't even let me get started about the Conservative presidents. Donny Drumpf, the frontrunner, would be the biggest joke and the worst ****ing politician America will have, no doubt. He is very mean, a bigot, racist, and is shaming people all the time. He acts like all muslims are terrorists and all Mexicans are drug addicts and rapists, so he wants to ban Muslim immigration and build a massive wall (that I call Great Wall of America) around the southern border, both of which I disagree with. He is a cold hearted person with hotels that have gone bankrupt multiple times, so there's no chance of him Making America Great Again. And America already is great. Therefore, disliking Trump is not only a political choice, but also an ethical choice.

Ted Cruz, is nothing but a liar. He is all talk and no action. He spends more time picking on and berating Donald Drumpf (not defending Drumpf in any way) than actually focusing on his own campaign, and complains how the Conservative party is divided and not the way it should be. John Kasich, who doesn't have a shot at being President, seems to only care about Ohio and not the rest of the country. He should just stay as the Governor of Ohio.

I really, really do hope that Bernie becomes our President. He, in my eyes, is the leader that our country deserves. He will certainly get America back on track, and changing it for the better. Bernie has been winning states a t a higher rate than Hillary these days, lets hope he can get more delegates than her, too.

Feel The Bern!!!

Even though he would tax (basically) 6.4% of GDP over the next ten years if his policies are implemented? Bernie Sanders likes to invoke Denmark a lot, and how the USA should be like them economically, so let's break their policy down shall we?

The average net income in Denmark is $26,491 USD a year. It is more than the Euro Area average of $25,908 USD a year, but this is actually considerably less income than the US, which its citizens earn $51,939 USD a year. Factor in that the USA has a Federal income tax, and no federal VAT, while Denmark taxes 8% off the top of all incomes as a "Gross Tax". This means that taking the average income in Denmark into account, $2,119.28, on average, is paid to the government, regardless if you in the lower tax brackets. Then they have an income adjustable income tax on top of that in three brackets. Income below $6,542.64 is not taxed by the income tax, but they still have to pay the "Gross Tax." Incomes at $6,557.93 USD (citing 2014-levels, as if they were maintained to today) to $64,356.36 USD, pay at a rate of, again citing 2014 levels, 5.83%. Incomes over $64,509.23 pay an additional 15%. There is also a muncipal income tax, in the range of 23-28%, a Health contribution of 8% on all income taxable income (though that is getting merged with the regular income tax. It is entirely possible for a high-wage earner in Denmark to pay OVER HALF of their income AFTER the "Gross Tax", being taxed a total of 57% of their income. That is on a national level.

Own property in Denmark? According to 2013 tax levels, you pay 1.6%-3.4%. Go to the Danish National Church? Get ready to pay 0.4-1.5% church tax. Oh, and there is a VAT of 25%, one of the highest rates in the EU.

All in all, if you are a high earner, you pay a lot of money in taxes per dollar spent, a staggering 82% on the dollar, and this is the future that Sanders wants? He can move to Denmark if he likes it so much, and I'll even pay for his one way airfare.

 

[squadops]

All in all, if you are a high earner, you pay a lot of money in taxes per dollar spent, a staggering 82% on the dollar, and this is the future that Sanders wants? He can move to Denmark if he likes it so much, and I'll even pay for his one way airfare.

👍 I'd like to hear him speak about the constitution sometime.