2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Kanzler]

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
INVESTIGATE THE VOTER FRAUD AND VOTER SUPPRESSION IN ARIZONA 3/22/2016 DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Petition to have the Obama Administration investigate the voter fraud and voter suppression on 3/22/2016 in ARIZONA. Numerous voters who switched from Independent to Democrat could not vote and were turned away or given provisional ballots which in turn were never counted. We the people of the United States of America find this act alarming and would like a complete investigation to uncover the violations that occurred during the Arizona voting on 3/22/2016 and prosecute those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.

Published Date: Mar 22, 2016
Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties

This petition has 116,953 signatures at the time of writing. It's been two days since the petition was published. I wonder what the administration would have to say about this.

 

[Sir Codin]

There are anti-establishment parties in the United States, but no one votes for them because reasons.

 

[Klippy]

This petition has 116,953 signatures at the time of writing. It's been two days since the petition was published. I wonder what the administration would have to say about this.

If a petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the White House has to write a formal response at the very least.

 

[Kanzler]

Damn... Lindsey Graham's sad sad endorsement of Ted Cruz. Here are some highlights.

Host: Would [Ted Cruz] make a good president?

Graham: I think he'd make a better president than Trump, for damn sure, and I'd think he'd take the country in a new direction than Clinton. Would he make the best president? No, I don't think so of all the people running...

Host: Would John Kasich make a better president than Ted Cruz?

Graham: I think so. *nods*

Host: Yep.

Graham: Here's my concern. We can lose in 2016 and we probably will. Trump gets wiped out, Ted makes it competitive, I don't know if he can beat her or not, at least we've got a fighting chance. If Trump is the standard-bearer, it's not about 2016, it's about losing the heart and soul of the conservative movement. I'm not going to stand behind the guy who gets David Duke's support. So it's no longer about winning the election for me, it's trying to salvage a party that I love and conservatism as I know it.

 

[Klippy]

So just today several things are happening...

1) Ted Cruz was just revealed to be in five extramarital affairs. Source. Apparently at least two of them are staffers of his. Obviously the source is controversial (a tabloid), but apparently they broke stories about Charlie Sheen hiding his STD, John Edwards' affair, and some other juicy things.

2) Hillary Clinton's lost emails from her server have been discovered. Source.

3) Bernie's campaign just served the DNC with the lawsuit on voter data access. Source. He also did an interview with The Young Turks.

Some interesting stuff going on; take the sources for what you will. Thought they'd make for good topical questions though!

Will rumors or revelations about a cheating Ted Cruz damage the rest of his campaign? Why or why not?

Would Clinton being wrapped up in a controversial scandal involving her foundation and position with the White House damage Obama's legacy? Would he pardon her if criminal charges were brought? Would being indicted sink her campaign?

What can Bernie do to get his message out wider and close gaps with Clinton in critical states coming up?

 

[Kanzler]

Goodbye Lyin' Ted, hello Cheatin' Ted!

 

[Her]

- If Cruz can be proven to be conducting f i v e affairs (who would be attracted to Squidward is beyond me) then there's no doubt in my mind it would sink him. Then again, apparently anything is possible in this election season. But I really doubt that things have changed so dramatically that numerous sex scandals can't severely damage a career, if not end it.

- An indictment would similarly be incredibly hard to surpass on the road to the presidency. Particularly considering the hard-on her opponents have had for these emails, I'd imagine they'd pull out all the stops to try finish her once and for all if that happened. Trying and succeeding are two very different things, but it'd put a huge dent in the possibility of a Clinton administration.
Obama may pardon her, but I think it'd be less to save her than praying to God that the Republicans (Trump) don't get into office.

- Don't know enough basic info about the voter fraud controversy to comment on that.

 

[Kanzler]

Uh a small correction here, because I've been noticing a couple of people doing it:

Voter fraud is when the voter commits the fraud (ex. voting twice or impersonating someone else). Election fraud is when the people running the election are sketch. What people are complaining about happening in Arizona is election fraud.

 

[Ivysaur]

I think it's much more likely that five extramarital affairs will sink Cruz's campaign than a new development in a story that's already mostly discounted for most people will sink Clinton's. If she isn't indicted -and right now, the odds of her being doesn't seem to have changed that much-, it'll be a story Republicans care about and Democrats don't, so really not much change. But the extramarital affair has the issue of being the sort of story the supporters of a conservative, religious guy such as Cruz do care about. And Cruz needs to win Wisconsin to have any chances at derailing the Trump express before the convention, so... the timing is awful too. Because say, if the email scandal had happened anew this month, it'd have been horrendous for her. With several months to go, yeah, it's a wound but, after a while, people forget about it, like Benghazi and all those other "scandals" that have been pinned on to her. But if something like this happens right when you have zero margin of error and the clock is running out... that's seriously bad.

 

[Neil Peart]

I believe nothing until it's proven, but I'm in a minority there when it comes to this doofy country. In politics, sometimes a mere accusation can sink you with enough voters to screw you over. That being said, I hope it's false, because Trump needs all the opposition he can get, even if he's seemingly a lock for the nomination.

 

[Kanzler]

I'm really hoping that whatever happens, Trump doesn't become the Republican nominee because that'll give greater reason for Democrats to rally behind Hillary.

And you know what? I'm not understanding why people think Clinton is more electable than Sanders. Sanders has beaten Clinton on every head to head poll that I've seen, not only on a national level, but also on the state level. A new poll out of Michigan has Clinton losing 41-46 if Kasich is nominated, but Sanders would beat Kasich 47-42. The survey also has Clinton beating Trump and Cruz by 10 points in Michigan, but Sanders would beat them by 20 points.

 

[Esper]

And you know what? I'm not understanding why people think Clinton is more electable than Sanders.

Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters live in different worlds with little overlap. If you are a left-leaning person who is in business or has some money to your name (basically if you're doing well and your outlook for life looks good) you're voting for Clinton because she isn't going to rock the boat but she makes you feel good about all your liberal values. If you have left-leaning values but you worry about the future (because you're poor, because you can't get a decent job) then Bernie is your guy because you know that things as they are aren't good enough and need to change.

Since people tend to run in circles with people in similar situations your Clinton campers aren't hearing from the Sanders campers, but since the major media outlets are all Clinton backers the Sanders crowd does hear about that. Bernie's supporters are fighting the uphill battle so they need to be more informed than the Clinton supporters who feel they just need to ride a wave and not do much of anything.

 

[Kanzler]

kind of a funny article ive read.

not really relevant to the election as a whole, but i found this part interesting:

I don't think that quote really gets to the heart of what the author is trying to express. His idea is that tf-idf is a relative measure and that Sanders uses relatively less buzzwords than Clinton. So even if "income and wealth" has an tf-idf score of 29.1, his speech is generally much more diverse.

 

[Kanzler]

is that really the case? from my understanding out of "the more repetitive candidate by far".

either way. not a huge deal. :P

He's definitely repetitive. All his rallies are essentially the same. But within a given speech he uses less buzzwords and zingers. Hillary Clinton's stump speeches are more diverse and it depends who she's speaking to - Sanders gives essentially the same speech with the same topics in the same order to everyone he talks to - but her buzzwords or phrases can be applied to any topic. "We need to do more" for early childhood education/post-secondary education/breaking down barriers/racial inequality/the economy/foreign policy. "I took on" Wall Street/the pharmaceutical companies/the insurance companies/foreign policy hawks/the Republicans/nay-sayers.

As I mentioned in my previous article, tf-idf is a relative measure, so a score of 25 means only "higher than 20." Longer and more repeated phrases score higher, and phrases that have also been used by other candidates score lower.

If 67.2% of the phrases with 10 or under tf-idf belong to Sanders, then that means he uses a lot more shorter or less repeated phrases, wouldn't it? It could be the case that he's using phrases that have also been used by other candidates, but Sanders is as anti-establishment as they come so I doubt that.

 

[Netto Azure]

Twas an interesting caucus and being precinct captain. Got 4 delegates for Sanders and 1 for Hillary in my precinct, will also join the other delegates for the district/legislative caucus in WA for April 17th.

 

[Mista]

I usually never post, but I had to in this case

I'm pretty upset by what happened in Arizona. I think it's fair to call it voter fraud. Tons of people who had been longtime or newly changed Democrats showed up and were told they were registered as independents still, or sometimes as Republicans or Libertarians. Only people registered as Democrats could vote in the Arizona primary so lots of people were told they couldn't vote or were given provisional ballots (which often don't get counted).

Add to that the fact that in Maricopa County (over 3 million people) cut its number of voting places down to a third of what they were in 2012. Voter turnout was a record high.

Add also to that the fact that early mail votes heavily favored one of the remaining two candidates.

It would be so easy for someone to change the voter rolls if they had access. I can't know if something like this happened, but I can be very suspicious. I've already signed the petition on whitehouse.gov:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-suppression-arizona-3222016-democratic-party

I don't know what else I can do at the moment though.

The democratic party had nothing to do with the amount of voting places being reduced. Primaries are controlled by the state which in AZ Republicans control all 3 branches. The DNC couldn't have done this even if they wanted to (unless you think the DNC worked with the Republicans on this, but then I think you're going into crazy conspiracy territory with that)

This wasn't the DNC trying to suppress Bernie voters, but the Republicans trying to suppress minorities for the general election. In 2012 Republicans couldn't reduce the amount of polling places due to the voting rights act (which AZ fell under), but thanks to the Supreme court striking it down in 2013 it allowed the AZ republican party to change it freely.

So it's really annoying seeing people blame Clinton and the DNC for this, but letting the true culprits get away scott free.

 

[Klippy]

I usually never post, but I had to in this case

The democratic party had nothing to do with the amount of voting places being reduced. Primaries are controlled by the state which in AZ Republicans control all 3 branches. The DNC couldn't have done this even if they wanted to (unless you think the DNC worked with the Republicans on this, but then I think you're going into crazy conspiracy territory with that)

This wasn't the DNC trying to suppress Bernie voters, but the Republicans trying to suppress minorities for the general election. In 2012 Republicans couldn't reduce the amount of polling places due to the voting rights act (which AZ fell under), but thanks to the Supreme court striking it down in 2013 it allowed the AZ republican party to change it freely.

So it's really annoying seeing people blame Clinton and the DNC for this, but letting the true culprits get away scott free.

Glad to have you join us though! We always like new faces.

But I do believe there is some culpability in the DNC and with Clinton as well, as neither have come out to protest the results or the reduction in polling locations. But there's serious problems regardless of party affiliation. Lots of suspicious circumstances around AZ and the mainstream media is not covering it much, if at all - because Clinton winning fits their narrative. Bernie coming closer to her in any way hurts their message and their desperate need to see Hillary as their nominee. It's no different than the accounts of Trump-related election fraud at the Republican end.

The Republicans and Democrats each are fighting against anti-establishment pushback in their parties (Trump and Sanders). Neither party wants to hurt the status quo of D.C. - especially not with these two guys.

 

[Ivysaur]

The problem with the anti-establishment pushback narrative is that the establishment Republicans are "happily" rallying around the most hated man in the DC, aka one Ted Cruz (one of his endorsers, Lindsey Graham, once described him as "poison" and said you could murder him in the Senate and nobody would convict you), so it's not that at this point they are pro-establishment but rather anti-Trump. Because let's face it, Sanders's opposite number is Cruz- both ideologues based on their party's traditions. Their platforms sound like "this is what anybody in our party would like to do if they were guaranteed 8 straight years with majorities in Congress" and are attacking the tepid moderates (Clinton, Kasich-Rubio-Bush) whose plans are "this is the best we can aim for considering that we'll need to compromise with the other side for most decisions". If Cruz, who has always been put in "the anti-establishment team" and who is hated by every single establishment RNC member out there has managed to seem "mainstream" is because his ideas, as radical as they might be, are consistent with the Republican platform of the past decades, and because the only person left to compare him with is so off the charts virtually anybody seems "establishment" next to him.

Trump is not "the opposite Sanders". Trump is the equivalent to nobody. Trump is the Wallace in the race, a crazy, angry, non-politician who fosters violence and division and whose ideas are a mishmash of everything, unbound by nothing. It's just that, instead of trying a third-party run, he's trying to take over the Republican party knowing that he does have a public within its bases and that by being in the ballot as a Republican, he starts off with 40 million votes and a dozen states by default in the general.

 

[Esper]

What happened in Arizona isn't just happening there. I've heard about people in New York and California (both very Democratic states) finding their party affiliation changed without reason when they went to check on it. Yes, it's true that Republicans are generally anti-vote and make it harder to vote in a lot of places, but I don't think their reach is so long that it can make such inroads into a state like California with a Democratic majority throughout state government.

And then there was Hawaii, which the major media corporations didn't report on until this morning despite it overwhelmingly going to Bernie. All in all it seems like there is a major feeling among certain kinds of people, whether coordinated or not, to make Bernie look unelectable and/or muck up the voting process.

I'm definitely holding on to my voter registration card and bringing it with me when my state votes.

 

[Ivysaur]

The US is a scary place.