It’s a big day in the presidential primaries process, with Democratic and Republican primaries to be held in the fourth largest state, New York. The state has long been seen as a stronghold for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and while Bernie Sanders has been narrowing the gap somewhat against Clinton, a win for him would be a very major boilover. Here’s a thread for discussion of the news as it unfolds.
Is it just me, or does the new UI have an unusually large amount of empty space? Even within this comment textarea, the line-height is pretty ridiculous.
Anyways, I hope Trump wins handily. He’s the most unelectable candidate the GOP can put forward. Which is what the U.S. needs, as putting the current crop of conservatives in control of the House, Senate, and the White House would be an unmitigated disaster. The Democrats need to win the presidency, at least. And Trump is their best ticket for doing so. He’d lose a general election to a wet paper bag.
Trump could be the most unelectable GOP candidate, ar, but he’s much less predictable than Cruz, who is also quite unelectable, so I’d be slightly more worried about Trump if he wins the nomination. One of Cruz’s supposed virtues (to his supporters) is that he is inflexible in his views, which means the Democrats would be able to plan their campaign and stick to it, knowing what to expect. With Trump, anything could happen. Wildcards are dangerous.
Someone is feeling the ‘Bern’ today and it isn’t Hillary Clinton.
I know I should already know this, but what happens to the delegates of people who pull out of the race along the way? Do they simply remain attached to the original (now withdrawn) runner, or can they be distributed (like preference voting) to others still in the race?
Rod Hagen:
When a candidate who has dropped out endorses another candidate, they usually pledge their delegates to that person as well. I’m not sure if that actually binds the delegates to vote for the new candidate or not, however.
Rod Hagen, I’ve heard that Rubio has kept delegates and can release them to another candidate if he wishes. I don’t know if that’s true of all of them. The rules on that might vary between states. I also don’t know how they define “pull out of the race”. Candidates usually say they’re “suspending” their campaigns, which might technically mean they are still in the race so any delegates they have are still bound to them.
Clinton has met the challenge laid down by pundits of achieving a double digit win.
Trump’s victory is pretty decisive, given the challenge of winning so many precincts.
What’s the end game for Sanders?
I think Sanders is a cooked chook of the deep fried variety.
why are some people here so smug about today’s results? clinton is a very bad candidate – sanders quite a good one – he knows his way around congress etc – all the criticisms of himbeing unpragmatic are unfounded – his demands are quite reasonable, it is the big end of town that is unreasonable in refusing to give up any profits – clinton is dangerous and wrong candidate entirely at present – her cmments on israel this week only confirm …
triton
Yes, they invariably “suspend” their campaign so they keep their delegates and can shop them in a contested convention, in exchange for a VP role or a plum Secretary job.
There are people for whom “lesser of two evils” thinking is a religion. They set low standards for electoral candidates and style themselves as “pragmatic”. It’s an identity signifier for them.
I expect Sanders to stay in the struggle until California. Clinton’s poll lead has diminished dramatically, but its still a lead in California polls.
it feels like dem party rigged things a bit …. they were desperate —–
it is so strange when america the exporter of so called democracy to rest of world can’t get its own act together …. its voting procedures seem shambolic at times, as does non compulsory voting
Samders can only be staying in the race now to bargain for something. Harry Emten points out he has almost no chance from now, with proportional delegates and Clinton having a big lead. Clinton leads California polls by 13 points, and most of the states voting in between. Sanders would need to won each by a 9 point margin or better to overtake Clinton. See
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/new-york-primary-presidential-election-2016/
Was it just me or was the age and sex of the people standing behind Trump when giving his speech rather skewed? Does America consist only of young, blonde women and men old enough to be their dads? Trump values of course.
Agreed, geoffrey, Clinton is a bad candidate. She’s a poor campaigner whereas Sanders is a very good one. As best as I can imagine a general election campaign, I think Clinton would be rattled and look weak v. Trump but Sanders would have his measure and get under Trump’s skin. Clinton would be on the defensive all the time responding to endless attacks, and not very well, (and there are truckloads of material to attack her on), but I can’t see Sanders having that problem.
Further on delegates left without a candidate, the excellent site Green Papers that someone mentioned here in an earlier thread has this on the 17 at-large delegates for the winner of the Pennsylvania Republican primary:
The delegates are released if the candidate withdraws, suspends, or terminates his/her campaign or publicly releases his/her delegates.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/PA-R
So there’s one case where you lose your delegates if you suspend your campaign.
Actually, some of us just believe that Clinton is by far the better candidate.
More importantly an overwhelming majority of Democrat supporters in the US believe that also.
Some of us who have lived in the US or know anything about US politics outside of what we read on Salon or HuffPost know that Sanders is totally unelectable despite what irrelevant and skewed polls say atm.
Do you really think that once Sanders history and views are scrutinised that his polling numbers will stand up?
Some of us also have not swallowed the kool-aid and do not believe that Clinton is anything like a right-wing neo-con that the disingenuous Sanders supporters paint her as.
She is considered to be very liberal on most issues in the US and was ranked as the 11th most liberal senator during her time in office.
Nor do we believe and regurgitate the vile and plain wrong bullshit the republicans have thrown at her for nearly 30 years.
Unlike these apparent smart and savvy Sanders supporters who swallow the nonsense served up to them by the likes of Karl Rove and the nefarious Koch brothers.
There is a reason that the republicans and all their vested rich supporters are spending so much money attacking Clinton and almost completely ignoring Sanders.
Because they know who is the viable candidate (Clinton) and who they would prefer to face in a presidential election (Sanders).
The arrogance and smugness of Sanders supporters (even here in Australia) is on display once again as anyone who does not vote for this democrat of convenience is dismissed as ill-informed, lazy or just dumb.
When Sanders lives out his life in Vermont, while probably raking in millions on the speakers circuit including from corporations, he might reflect on why he has been unable to build a coalition of voters outside the white middle to upper class selfish and privileged youth or angry white sexist and racist men he should just look towards those very supporters who have been so off putting and destructive during this contest.
Clinton will be the next President.
I hope you’re right, Colton. If Clinton really does have the better chance of winning despite her poor campaigning abilities then I’m all for her. As long as the Republicans are kept out.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/20/the_simple_reason_why_hillary_clinton_isnt_the_future_of_the_democratic_party/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
“…he might reflect on why he has been unable to build a coalition of voters outside the white middle to upper class selfish and privileged youth or angry white sexist and racist men…”
Ah so you’re one of those people. Sanders and his supporters aren’t sexist. Clinton isn’t liberal. This is all well documented outside of the media outlets that don’t donate huge amounts of money to her campaign.
Many thanks Triton, Asha Leu et al. So the answer may well be “it depends” rather than there being a single simple answer applicable to all delegates of “once wasser’ candidates. I presume that most “non-Trump” candidates, if able to send on their own delegates, would probably send them to someone other than Trump. Mind you, the thought of passing them to the appalling Cruz must stick in the craw of any even half “centrist” Republican!
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/25/bill_clinton_cant_stop_screwing_up_why_his_latest_broadside_against_millennials_reveals_an_underlying_problem/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow