Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bballwaterboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2016 Issues Race
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
1,469 replies · 117K views
Yahoo has a report that Sanders won the Washington State democratic caucus.
http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-wins-dem-presidential-caucuses-washington-state-223052769--election.html
AP Headline "Sanders wins Dem presidential caucuses in Washington state" 6:32 EDT

At the time of this post, only 30.56% of precincts have reported.
http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucus-results
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
Physics news on Phys.org
Astronuc said:
Yahoo has a report that Sanders won the Washington State democratic caucus.
http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-wins-dem-presidential-caucuses-washington-state-223052769--election.html
AP Headline "Sanders wins Dem presidential caucuses in Washington state" 6:32 EDT

At the time of this post, only 30.56% of precincts have reported.
http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucus-results
Pretty impressive if he wins. That's up to 101 delegates.

But on the other hand, Western Washington, where the bulk of the population lives, may be the most liberal - even socialist or, gasp, communist - region in the nation.

I recall Postmaster General James Farley's famous quip about "the 47 states and the Soviet of Washington."
http://old.seattletimes.com/special/centennial/july/reds.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dotini said:
But on the other hand, Western Washington, where the bulk of the population lives, may be the most liberal - even socialist or, gasp, communist - region in the nation.
Interestingly, Sanders is strong in western Wa as well.

With 33.3% of precincts reporting, Sanders has 4440 votes (75.6%) and Clinton 1420 votes (24.2%). Vote counts above represent the number of legislative district convention delegates won by each presidential preference.

I was told by a local official that the caucus turnout was even bigger than when Obama ran, but it wasn't clear if that was the first or second time, or both.

Sanders is particularly strong with independents.

BTW - the caucuses opened at 10 am PDT, and voting began at 10:30 and concluded at between 11:00 and 11:30 am. So it's kind of early to declare winners, but locally, Sanders seemed have strong support.Seems Sanders won in Alaska too.

Sanders wins primary caucuses in Alaska and Washington
http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-seeks-caucus-trifecta-win-close-delegate-gap-065249484--election.html I'm learning how Washington democrats do this. Today (March 26) was the precinct level caucuses. Following this is:

Legislative district caucuses (Sunday, April 17)
County conventions (Sunday, May 1)
Congressional district caucuses (Saturday, May 21)
State convention in Tacoma (Saturday, June 18)
National convention (Monday - Thursday, July 25-28).

Washington state also has primaries May 24 (starts on May 6 and goes for 18 days).
May 6 - Presidential Primary 18-day voting period begins / regular ballots mailed
May 24 - Presidential Primary
Source: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/2016-Presidential-Primary.aspx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately these wins will not be nearly enough for Sanders. The beatings he took in the south (with percentages like 85-15) and in delegate rich states like Florida put him very behind. He would need to be pulling impossible numbers like 90% to beat Hillary at this point.
 
Derek Francis said:
Unfortunately these wins will not be nearly enough for Sanders. .
Maybe not. Hillary Clinton stands to be indicted for mishandling classified (SAP) information. If so, she couldn't become President. But could Sanders? If there were to be an indictment after Mrs Clinton were successfully nominated, what political procedure or process would come into effect? I know of no precedent.
 
Astronuc said:
With 33.3% of precincts reporting, Sanders has 4440 votes (75.6%) and Clinton 1420 votes (24.2%). Vote counts above represent the number of legislative district convention delegates won by each presidential preference.
Now with 68% of precincts reporting in Wa state, Sanders has 10,853 votes (72.2%) to Clinton's 4161 (27.8%), with 29 votes uncommitted. Vote counts above represent the number of legislative district convention delegates won by each presidential preference.
 
Astronuc said:
Now with 68% of precincts reporting in Wa state, Sanders has 10,853 votes (72.2%) to Clinton's 4161 (27.8%), with 29 votes uncommitted. Vote counts above represent the number of legislative district convention delegates won by each presidential preference.
Still to come will be county and state delegate conventions. The Washington process is complex and fraught with potential.
 
Sanders wins 2 states; Clinton retains big delegate lead (Safe now to confirm Sanders won in Washington).
http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-seeks-caucus-trifecta-win-close-delegate-gap-065249484--election.html
He was unlikely to emerge from his Saturday sweep with significantly more delegates, winning at least 27 delegates to Clinton's five for the day after his Washington victory. More are likely to be allocated to Sanders in several weeks, when Washington state Democratic party releases vote shares by district. Sixty-seven delegates are awarded based on results in the state's congressional districts.
Strange how this works.

One of the main differences between a primary election and a caucus is who is running the show. State governments conduct primaries, while state parties are behind caucuses. In both processes, voters are selecting candidates who will move on to the presidential election in November.

How will the political parties (in Wa state) use the results of the Presidential Primary?

The political parties retain the authority to decide if they will use the Presidential Primary to allocate delegates to the national nomination conventions. The political parties may also use caucus results, or a combination of primary results and caucus results.

The Republican Party will use the Presidential Primary results to allocate 100% of their convention delegates. The Democratic Party will not use the Primary Election results to allocate any of their delegates. They will rely solely on the results of their Precinct Caucuses on March 26th.

For more information about the caucuses, please contact the political parties.
from the Washington Secretary of State https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/2016-Presidential-Primary.aspx#q9

So far, Sanders has won all 37 of 39 counties. The lowest fraction for Sanders is 60% in Garfield county which also has the smallest population. Kings County has 65.4% for Sanders (at 7 pm PDT, the fraction was up to 66%).

New York has a primary on April 19. I expect Clinton will do well down in NY City and Westchester Co, while Sanders may do well in upstate, north and west.Democratic Showdowns in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ratic-caucus-washington-alaska-hawaii/475551/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dotini said:
Maybe not. Hillary Clinton stands to be indicted for mishandling classified (SAP) information. If so, she couldn't become President...
Very unlikely, but yes she could. With enough votes, a convicted gangster could become President. Natural born citizen, 35 yrs old, period. The US has has major politicians serving in office while in jail. Virginia recently had a legislator on day time release approved by the court to attend legislative duties, and then returned to jail at night. His criminal activity was public knowledge but this didn't stop the will of the people, in this case, from returning the guy to his office.
 
Last edited:
With 95.83% precincts reporting in Wa state: Sanders, 18092 votes (72.58%); Clinton, 6790 votes (27.24%). Sanders won all the counties.

The Latest: Sanders trims Clinton's delegate lead
http://news.yahoo.com/latest-bustling-caucus-sites-washington-state-201127069--election.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronuc said:
With 95.83% precincts reporting in Wa state: Sanders, 18092 votes (72.58%); Clinton, 6790 votes (27.24%). Sanders won all the counties.

The Latest: Sanders trims Clinton's delegate lead
http://news.yahoo.com/latest-bustling-caucus-sites-washington-state-201127069--election.html
Too bad Sanders is unlikely to be able to beat Trump, IMO, let's hope Clinton wins the Dem nomination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evo said:
Too bad Sanders is unlikely to be able to beat Trump, let's hope Clinton wins the Dem nomination.
The polls actually show that Sanders is a lot stronger than Clinton against all Republican candidates, not just Trump (who's the only Republican candidate losing to both Sanders and Clinton by double digits)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mheslep
Evo said:
Too bad Sanders is unlikely to be able to beat Trump,
I think Sanders could possibly beat Trump in a general election. But it is perhaps more likely that Clinton will win at the convention, if not before. Let's see how well Clinton or Sanders does in the remaining contests, especially, NY, PA, NJ and CA.Final tally in Wa.

Code: 
Sanders   19059  72.7%

Clinton    7140  27.1%

Uncom.       46   0.2%
 
Last edited:
GOP is having a Hamlet scale family feud. Kasich could walk in like Fortinbras expressing amazement at all the political carnage.

Dems have this little problem
Whatdiff.jpg


I will not be one bit surprised if we get to choose between .Kasich and Sanders .
 
Interesting scenarios

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/trump-cruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html
Trump needs 44% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. If Cruz or Kasich were to win Ca, that would probably result in a brokered or contested convention.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/clinton-sanders-democratic-delegate-lead.html
Sanders needs 58% of remaining delegates (after March 15) to prevent Clinton from cinching the nomination. He did 81.6% of votes in Alaska (and 13/16 or 81.3% of delegates) and 72.6% of votes in Wa (and 23/31 or 74% delegates) . However, Wa has to go through more caucuses and conventions to allocate the remaining delegates to the national convention, and there are another 80 delegates by the math.
 
Sanders could beat Trump due to having a lower unfavorability rating. Plus being a general election candidate is a sure way to boost your name recognition.

Sanders needs 58% of delegates to get his respective nomination, as you said. Trump only needs 55%, so 58% doesn't seem like a lot. But Sanders would have to win almost every state and would have to do big numbers in several of them. Still a long shot, but we'll see.

Trump is benefitted from the fact that his field was split and he's been having the most votes of the candidates. The GOP could replace Trump with another candidate but they won't because it would damage their chances of winning the general election for a number of reasons.
 
Sanders won in Hawaii with nearly 70% of the vote. Sanders gets 17 delegates to Clinton's 8.
Code: 
Sanders   23,530   69.8%

Clinton   10,125   30.0%

Update on Wa, Sanders got 25 of 34 or 64% of delegates, so there are 67 additional delegates up for grabs.
 
Sanders on Clinton’s Clooney fundraiser: ‘It is obscene’
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-clooney-hillary-clinton-171452613.html
Clinton is asking donors for $353,400 for two seats at the head table with herself, Clooney and his wife, Amal, at the April 15 event in San Francisco. The next night, the Clooneys will host a $33,400 per person fundraiser for Clinton at the couple’s Los Angeles home.
Must be nice to have rich friends. Hard to believe that $$$ don't buy influence.Sanders hails 'momentum' after trouncing Clinton in three states
http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-beats-clinton-washington-democratic-caucuses-224911792.html
Sanders has drawn strong support from voters with a populist message that rails against police brutality, a too-low minimum wage, soaring student debt and other societal ills.

In particular, millennials and first-time voters have been flocking to Sanders' message of economic equality, universal health care, and his call to reduce the influence of billionaires on the campaign finance system.

Sanders also pointed to a series of national polls that show him consistently doing better than Clinton against Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or Ohio governor John Kasich -- the three Republicans who remain in the hunt for their party's nomination.
Apparently, at least 230,000 Washington Democrats participated in our 2016 precinct caucuses, and someone mentioned a bigger turnout than in 2008.

Interesting perspective - Despite The Math, Bernie Sanders Has Already Won
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/27/472056754/despite-the-math-bernie-sanders-has-already-won
 
Last edited:
No guns allowed at Republican convention: Secret Service
http://news.yahoo.com/no-guns-allowed-republican-convention-secret-010424152.htmlMeanwhile, Trump looks to decertify Louisiana delegates
He doesn't like the way the folks in Louisiana run their own show.
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-threatens-lawsuit-over-louisiana-delegates-164158979--election.html

Donald Trump spent 100(!) minutes talking foreign policy with New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and David Sanger. The duo wrote a story -- and the Times released an edited transcript, which Chris Cillizza annotated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...licy-to-the-new-york-times-im-still-confused/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We're in good hands with Trump. I was watching him being interviewed by Charlie Sykes, a Conservative talk-show host. Trump was asked whether he thought he should apologize to Cruz for mocking his (Cruz') wife. Trump's reply : " He started it ". Good, we are working at a high school level. Kasich seems like the only reasonable candidate on the Right.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim hardy
Right now, my stance on this election is neutral. I'm an Independent. Here's my personal pros and cons sheet of both candidates.

Donald Trump
Pros: Has lots of administrative experience ; favors American interests ; wants to re-examine NAFTA/TPP ; was anti-Iraq ; shook up the Republican establishment ; Isn't owned by lobbyists/PAC's ; Beneath his persona, he seems very prudent and intelligent. ; His run has energized voters on both sides
Cons: Panders to xenophonia ; Is a protectionist ; Offers almost no policy specifics ; Has named very few advisors ; His tax plan will add trillions to the debt

Ted Cruz
Pros: He's plain-spoken
Cons: No administrative experience ; No negotiating skills ; Is the most extremely conservative candidate running ; His tax plan is regressive will add trillions to the debt

John Kasich
Pros: By far the most professional of all the candidates in the race ; Promotes positivity/tolerance/respect ; The only major candidate with governing experience ; Actually told us who he would have in our administration ; Would probably be the most competent administrator of the choices we have ;
Cons: Supports most of the same stuff as Cruz/Trump, just with a nicer softer tone

Gary Johnson
Pros: Is the least hawkish on foreign policy ; Is most pro-freedom on social issues ; Is looking more appealing as this election is getting nasty
Cons: Is far to my right on economic issues ; Won't win

Jill Stein
Pros: I agree with her on a majority of issues ; She cares about the environment
Cons: She won't win ; She's somewhat into all-natural conspiracy thing

Hillary Clinton
Pros: Offers policy specifics ; Has experience ; Is the most well-rounded candidate
Cons: Voted for Iraq (worst decision in modern history) ; Arab Spring was a failure ; flip flops often ; too establishment/dynastic politics

Bernie Sanders
Pros: Has the most integrity of the major candidates ; Has stood against PAC's ; Wants to regulate big banks and money interests ; Is the least hawkish on foreign policy amongst the major candidates
Cons: Is dense with policy and numbers ; Has a terrible temperament for negotiating/compromising ; Wants open immigration and welfare system at the same time - bad combo ; Is running a campaign of anger similar to Trump

For someone partisan, this would be a very easy choice. Me as an independent, I have to balance numerous factors. I want someone who's anti-establishment but can govern to. Who is passionate, but can be diplomatic. Has a grand vision, but is also detail oriented. Has intregrity/prinicples, but knows how to negotiate and compromise. I'm not sure if any of the candidates really speak to me.
 
Derek Francis said:
Donald Trump
Pros: Has lots of administrative experience ; favors American interests ; wants to re-examine NAFTA/TPP ; was anti-Iraq ; shook up the Republican establishment ; Isn't owned by lobbyists/PAC's ; Beneath his persona, he seems very prudent and intelligent. ; His run has energized voters on both sides
Cons: Panders to xenophonia ; Is a protectionist ; Offers almost no policy specifics ; Has named very few advisors ; His tax plan will add trillions to the debt
emphasis mine
I think one needs policy specifics and more details about what he plans to do about the issues in order to conclude anything about his intelligence or prudence.
Derek Francis said:
For someone partisan, this would be a very easy choice.
Would you mind expanding on this? I'm not seeing how the criteria you've listed is exclusive to independents.
 
Derek Francis said:
was anti-Iraq
Where do you obtain that notion, prior to the invasion?
 
mheslep said:
Where do you obtain that notion, prior to the invasion?

I understand that while the [Iraq] invasion was going on, Trump's stance was essentially "I'm not sure why we're here, but it might be a good reason if the US government says its a top priority". I think this was the stance of many Americans at the time. However, shortly after, when it became apparent the war wasn't going well, he went on national television numerous time during Bush's tenure and advocated for troops to come home. Meanwhile, Hillary was defending her decision to vote for it.

For all of Trump's many faults, I know he would have the judgment to the U.S. in an extraneous military conflict that would be against American interests. With Hillary, especially seeing her record as Secretary of State, I'm not so sure. I also, strangely enough, agree with Trump and Putin on Syria more than Hillary, Obama and the establishment Republicans.
 
On the contrary, many of the Democrats who voted for the use of force against Iraq later became sharply critical of the war, arguing that their vote to authorize force called instead for further diplomacy. The template in my view was the then Majority Leader Harry "the war is lost" Reid, after he too voted for the invasion.http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Harry_Reid_War_+_Peace.htm
 
Last edited:
Derek Francis said:
; Beneath his persona, he seems very prudent and intelligent.

You can see something acceptable beneath his persona? Please tell me how you see anything but chaos if he is elected. While caught apparently off guard when asked about whether he favors punishment for women you had an abortion, which he said they should, he recanted his stand (presumably after being advised about this comment) saying only the doc's should be held responsible and that the women are victims as if they where abducted and the fetuses involuntarily removed. .He says use of nuclear weapons should be "left on the table" for use in the Middle East and Europe. How would you like to be his adviser?
 
gleem said:
While caught apparently off guard when asked about whether he favors punishment for women you had an abortion, which he said they should,
He and Matthews were trying to trap each other.
Matthews checkmated him.
Do or do you not prosecute all parties participating in an illegal act ?
Trump answered "yes" . Media feeding frenzy..
Answer of "No" would be contrary to 'equal treatment under the law'. Has anyone pointed that out ?

Trump's mistake was though as you say, recanting.Some you win some you lose.