Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Jan 2016, 1:41 pm

Sassenach wrote:What's the timetable for the primaries ? I seem to recall that Iowa happens pretty soon, but I can't remember.

Iowa is Feb 1st.

According to Wikipedia the timetable is:

1 Feb: Iowa
9 Feb: New Hampshire
20 Feb: Nevada (D), South Carolina (R), Washington (R)
23 Feb: Nevada (R)
27 Feb: South Carolina (D)

March 1st is Super Tuesday. 11 States (Plus American Samoa) for the Democrats, and 14 States for the Republicans.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jan 2016, 1:48 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
rickyp wrote:dag
The big show is going to boil down to the Berndog and Trump. Two extremes for what has become quite an extreme country.


Based on the recent polling Bernie has more chance now then Trump. But Bernie versus Cruz will be just as big a juxtaposition.


This is just wrong.

Sanders has the edge in NH over Hillary. He has a slight edge over her in Iowa. However, nationally, it's not even close.

On the other hand, Trump is neck and neck with Cruz in Iowa and dominates NH. Nationally, he's way ahead.

Bernie can't win simply by winning Iowa and New Hampshire.
As was said above, Hillary was in the same position 8 years ago. And she got a higher vote in NH than Obama did.


I'll just say it: Sanders will not be the nominee.

He'll be 75 on election day. That is not going to happen. He would be the oldest first-term President in history.

The national polling will be covering people who are not paying attention to the primary races, and you do see an amount of change as a bandwagon starts up. If Sanders wins the first two primaries, it does not make him a shoe-in, but it does dent Hillary's position nationally.


If she is sufficiently dented, someone else will enter--Kerry, Gore, Biden? They're all old, but they're not "socialists." Maybe Senator Liawatha?

She is further ahead now than she was in Jan 2008, and still is the favourite, but it will not be easy for her.


If she wins Iowa, the rout will be on.

Trump can easily lose Iowa and still get the nomination.
He can, but surely you don't want that.


As long as the nominee is not Bush, Kasich, or Trump, I'll be happy.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jan 2016, 2:11 pm

fate
If she is sufficiently dented, someone else will enter--Kerry, Gore, Biden? They're all old, but they're not "socialists." Maybe Senator Liawatha?

Bernies not a socialist. But then you call Obama a socialist. I suppose because you feel he is..

There is virtually no way another candidate gets in after Iowa. Why don't you know this?


JANUARY
Assuming Biden hasn't started filling out paperwork just in case, the major cutoff when it comes to filing deadlines is January, when another 15 states require candidates to register. According to an analysis by the Brookings Institution, by the middle of the month an undeclared candidate will have forfeited 2,232 delegates, or about the number needed to become the nominee.

FEBRUARY — JUNE
The Iowa caucus is on February 1, and starting with the New Hampshire primary on February 9 the other candidates will start divvying up delegates. A few states don't have filing deadlines, but they only total about 500 delegates. We should know who the Democratic nominee is well before June, when the last half-dozen states hold their primaries.
\
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... race.html#
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jan 2016, 3:20 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
If she is sufficiently dented, someone else will enter--Kerry, Gore, Biden? They're all old, but they're not "socialists." Maybe Senator Liawatha?

Bernies not a socialist. But then you call Obama a socialist. I suppose because you feel he is..


Hey, he calls himself a socialist. Why don't you know that?

For Sanders, the often rambling speech at Georgetown University was an opportunity to demystify the moniker of “socialist,” one which has enthused his supporters and repelled his skeptics.

“When I use the world socialist–and I know some people aren’t comfortable about it—I’m saying that it is imperative,” Sanders said, that we “create a government that works for all and not just the few.”

Democratic socialism, Sanders said, is not tied to any Marxist belief or the abolition of capitalism. “I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal,” he said.

Sanders use of the term “democratic socialist” has been both a weakness and a strength. He refused in the first Democratic debate in Las Vegas to call himself a capitalist, calling it a “casino” system, but has insisted he would not overturn the free market.


So, he's not a Bolshevik. He is a socialist.

There is virtually no way another candidate gets in after Iowa. Why don't you know this?


JANUARY
Assuming Biden hasn't started filling out paperwork just in case, the major cutoff when it comes to filing deadlines is January, when another 15 states require candidates to register. According to an analysis by the Brookings Institution, by the middle of the month an undeclared candidate will have forfeited 2,232 delegates, or about the number needed to become the nominee.

FEBRUARY — JUNE
The Iowa caucus is on February 1, and starting with the New Hampshire primary on February 9 the other candidates will start divvying up delegates. A few states don't have filing deadlines, but they only total about 500 delegates. We should know who the Democratic nominee is well before June, when the last half-dozen states hold their primaries.
\
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... race.html#


That is true, but it doesn't mean that someone else can't get in and win. There are 713 super-delegates of whom 9 are pledged to Bernie.

I don't know what the total number of delegates will be, but I do know there will be sheer panic if it appears Bernie, who is not a Democrat, seems on his way to the nomination.

I'll give anyone 2:1 Bernie will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party.*

*Barring an indictment of or withdrawal by Hillary.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 13 Jan 2016, 3:53 pm

So far as I can tell, all of the candidates are terrible this time, from either party. In the past there's always been one or two that I could see myself voting for if I were an American (I think John McCain would have made a decent President for example), but this time I'm genuinely at a loss to think who I'd want to support. At a push maybe Christie would be ok, although there's a lingering sense that there's something of the Tony Soprano about him. He can't win in any case though, so that's largely irrelevant. Hillary is experienced but she's also deeply unlikeable and her record as SoS was pretty woeful, so how much use is her experience really ?

If I had a vote I'd probably go with Rand Paul. It would obviously be a wasted vote, but I do quite like him and even though I don't really agree with his libertarian politics I think it may be healthy if it were to get a proper airing.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Jan 2016, 4:00 pm

It is not RickyP's fault that he cannot identify the differences between a Socialist and a Democrat. Hillary Clinton and the current DNC chair (Wasserman-Shultz) cannot either.
[url]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... t_one.html[/url]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/30/chris_matthews_to_debbie_wasserman_schultz_whats_the_difference_between_a_democrat_and_a_socialist.html
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jan 2016, 4:16 pm

fate
Hey, he calls himself a socialist. Why don't you know that?


He labels himself a democratic socialist.
And thats an important distinction. Which you may not understand.
2. Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist." What does that mean?
This difference between socialism and democratic socialism is actually kind of important. First of all, Sanders isn't talking about using government to take over large sections of the economy. He doesn't want to make Comcast part of the government, for example. He's also not talking about putting an end to the stock market and giving workers control over their companies. Some socialist countries, such as China and the Soviet Union, have sought to nationalize services under regimes that haven't given their citizens much say in those decisions.
Sanders wants the government to pay for health care and college tuition, but those services would still be provided by a combination of public agencies and private organizations if Sanders got his way.
While Sanders thinks that changes should be made to the U.S. economy, he doesn't envision doing away with the U.S. system of representative government — Congress, the Supreme Court, elections, all that sort of stuff. He believes in democracy. That's why he calls himself a "democratic socialist." In particular, as he repeated in Tuesday night's debate, he wants to reform the U.S. democratic system to limit the influence that wealthy donors who give money to political campaigns have over the process.
In much of the world — in particular in a number of Western and northern European countries — Sanders would be regarded as a moderate. To get a sense of the way socialism works differently around the world, consider the availability of universal health insurance, conventionally a basic tenet of a "socialist" country.
There is essentially universal coverage in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom, where socialist philosophy is embraced by many parts of government. In the United States, where socialism is often a dirty word, health insurance has become quasi-universal since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act. About 10.4 percent of Americans are without coverage. And in China, which is nominally communist, many go without access to affordable care.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... socialism/

Labels are easy. Explaining himself is what Bernie seems to be good at.
He calls his Universal health care proposal Medicare for all. Since those on Medicare are anxious to keep it, and those with parents on it, understand this ... maybe he'll communicate the benefits well.
he certainly put Chelsea Clinton in her place over her misrepresentation of his plan...

fate
That is true, but it doesn't mean that someone else can't get in and win

Math being inflexible, , it does indeed mean that a latecomer can't get in and win.
There are 3636 pledged delegates and only 704 unpledged super delegates.
Anyone getting in now would have access to only about 800 unpledged delegates and the 704 super delegates. Although Hillary has 302 of the Supers already pledging their support. That means only about 1100 delegates are available and I think we can assume that no one can run the table on those ...
Anything other than Hillary or Bernie is implausible at this point.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Jan 2016, 5:28 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Hey, he calls himself a socialist. Why don't you know that?


He labels himself a democratic socialist.
And thats an important distinction. Which you may not understand.


Do you think it is a distinction that the current leader of the Democratic Primary race and the head of the DNC should be able to identify? Perhaps it is not all that easy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265

5. In a speech he gave at the National Committee for Independent Political Action in New York City on June 22, 1989, reprinted in the December 1989 issue of the socialist publication Monthly Review: “In Vermont, everybody knows that I am a socialist and that many people in our movement, not all, are socialists. And as often as not — and this is an interesting point that is the honest-to-God truth — what people will say is, ‘I don’t really know what socialism is, but if you’re not a Democrat or a Republican, you’re OK with me.’ That’s true. And I think there has been too much of a reluctance on the part of progressives and radicals to use the word ‘socialism.’”


Heck... Even Sanders says everybody in Vermont knows he is a Socialist.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Jan 2016, 5:30 pm

Yes, he does say there is a difference, but Vermont doesn't understand either...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jan 2016, 5:32 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Hey, he calls himself a socialist. Why don't you know that?


He labels himself a democratic socialist.
And thats an important distinction. Which you may not understand.
2. Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist." What does that mean?
This difference between socialism and democratic socialism is actually kind of important. First of all, Sanders isn't talking about using government to take over large sections of the economy. He doesn't want to make Comcast part of the government, for example. He's also not talking about putting an end to the stock market and giving workers control over their companies. Some socialist countries, such as China and the Soviet Union, have sought to nationalize services under regimes that haven't given their citizens much say in those decisions.
Sanders wants the government to pay for health care and college tuition, but those services would still be provided by a combination of public agencies and private organizations if Sanders got his way.
While Sanders thinks that changes should be made to the U.S. economy, he doesn't envision doing away with the U.S. system of representative government — Congress, the Supreme Court, elections, all that sort of stuff. He believes in democracy. That's why he calls himself a "democratic socialist." In particular, as he repeated in Tuesday night's debate, he wants to reform the U.S. democratic system to limit the influence that wealthy donors who give money to political campaigns have over the process.
In much of the world — in particular in a number of Western and northern European countries — Sanders would be regarded as a moderate. To get a sense of the way socialism works differently around the world, consider the availability of universal health insurance, conventionally a basic tenet of a "socialist" country.
There is essentially universal coverage in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom, where socialist philosophy is embraced by many parts of government. In the United States, where socialism is often a dirty word, health insurance has become quasi-universal since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act. About 10.4 percent of Americans are without coverage. And in China, which is nominally communist, many go without access to affordable care.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... socialism/

Labels are easy. Explaining himself is what Bernie seems to be good at.
He calls his Universal health care proposal Medicare for all. Since those on Medicare are anxious to keep it, and those with parents on it, understand this ... maybe he'll communicate the benefits well.
he certainly put Chelsea Clinton in her place over her misrepresentation of his plan...

fate
That is true, but it doesn't mean that someone else can't get in and win

Math being inflexible, , it does indeed mean that a latecomer can't get in and win.
There are 3636 pledged delegates and only 704 unpledged super delegates.
Anyone getting in now would have access to only about 800 unpledged delegates and the 704 super delegates. Although Hillary has 302 of the Supers already pledging their support. That means only about 1100 delegates are available and I think we can assume that no one can run the table on those ...
Anything other than Hillary or Bernie is implausible at this point.


No, it's not an important distinction. Read my quote FROM Sanders! He felt no need for the qualifier. He will use democratic means to achieve the same end.

If Hillary wins delegates, a safe assumption, a new entry would win in a locked convention.

If you think Bernie will win, I've stated my terms. Bet me. You don't think he will either.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Jan 2016, 3:49 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Hey, he calls himself a socialist. Why don't you know that?


He labels himself a democratic socialist.
And thats an important distinction. Which you may not understand.
Not really. Democratic socialism is a kind of socialism. The similar term which is not quite the same thing is social democrat.

In the below quote, China and the USSR were not "socialist", but "communist", which is further along the spectrum.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Jan 2016, 6:42 am

bbauska
Yes, he does say there is a difference, but Vermont doesn't understand either...


It will come down to how voters feel about his specific policies and what Americans will consider the important issues that will decide their votes.
I suspect the biggest one is income inequality. Which is see by voters on both the right and the left as a major problem. And has been acknowledged as such by politicians on both sides.
Bernie has been a major voice on this matter for years. And has policies that attack the issue.
- Medicare for all
- College tuition .
- breaking up the banks
- taxation of all income and higher taxes for the wealthy and corporations

They are fairly substantial . Trumps? Cruz? Not sure what they have on these...

Fate
If you think Bernie will win,

I think Bernie has a chance. And a better chance than Trump.
Because Bernie doesn't seem to have a ceiling with Democrats. Trump does.
Today I think Hillary will win. Among Republicans, Cruz. But things change...
Fate
If Hillary wins delegates, a safe assumption, a new entry would win in a locked convention.

Since the primary system established itself there has never been a nomination decided by the machinations at the convention. The conditions that would cause this to happen in either party this time are highly unlikely. Either of the two major candidates will have enough delegates to win a majority first round vote. Bernie, if he wins a few of the early states and gains momentum the way Obama did. He looks to be winning NH and Iowa seems awfully close.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Jan 2016, 6:58 am

rickyp wrote:bbauska
Yes, he does say there is a difference, but Vermont doesn't understand either...


It will come down to how voters feel about his specific policies and what Americans will consider the important issues that will decide their votes.
I suspect the biggest one is income inequality. Which is see by voters on both the right and the left as a major problem. And has been acknowledged as such by politicians on both sides.
Bernie has been a major voice on this matter for years. And has policies that attack the issue.
- Medicare for all
- College tuition .
- breaking up the banks
- taxation of all income and higher taxes for the wealthy and corporations

They are fairly substantial . Trumps? Cruz? Not sure what they have on these...

Fate
If you think Bernie will win,

I think Bernie has a chance. And a better chance than Trump.
Because Bernie doesn't seem to have a ceiling with Democrats. Trump does.
Today I think Hillary will win. Among Republicans, Cruz. But things change...
Fate
If Hillary wins delegates, a safe assumption, a new entry would win in a locked convention.

Since the primary system established itself there has never been a nomination decided by the machinations at the convention. The conditions that would cause this to happen in either party this time are highly unlikely. Either of the two major candidates will have enough delegates to win a majority first round vote. Bernie, if he wins a few of the early states and gains momentum the way Obama did. He looks to be winning NH and Iowa seems awfully close.


Meh. You miss the point.

You're saying it's too late for anyone to get in and win. It's not. Consider this scenario: Hillary and Sanders are close in delegates through the first 4 contests. Hillary gets indicted. Initially, she stays in the race, but Candidate C enters the race and starts getting on ballots. Eventually, Hillary suspends her campaign.

She's not going to release those delegates. In effect, the new candidate becomes Hillary.

I'm not saying it's likely; I'm saying it's possible.

As for Trump, if he's not going to get the nomination, someone else needs to pick up one or two of the opening primaries: Iowa, NH, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida. Only weakening him before the SEC primary will stop him.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Jan 2016, 7:08 am

danivon wrote:
rickyp wrote:fate
Hey, he calls himself a socialist. Why don't you know that?


He labels himself a democratic socialist.
And thats an important distinction. Which you may not understand.
Not really. Democratic socialism is a kind of socialism. The similar term which is not quite the same thing is social democrat.

In the below quote, China and the USSR were not "socialist", but "communist", which is further along the spectrum.


All I know is the Democrats don't seem to be able to explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. Here's the head of the DNC: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHpiMv3Sy8Q

Hillary Clinton either can't or won't explain the difference: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Hk_CzrnF8
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Jan 2016, 9:59 am

Ricky:
I think Bernie has a chance. And a better chance than Trump.
Because Bernie doesn't seem to have a ceiling with Democrats. Trump does.
Today I think Hillary will win. Among Republicans, Cruz. But things change...


That seems reasonable to me. PredictWise which consolidates betting exchanges has it as:

Clinton 82%
Sanders 17%

For the Republicans:

Rubio 33%
Trump 22%
Cruz 22%

for the party nods.