Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

There was just a Pew poll that showed that 45% of Bernie supporters and 38% of Trump supporters felt that our international involvement made the world worse.Only 28% of Hillary supporters did.The nation was 34%. (60% on the opposite end)Hillary supporters are more hawkish than the national average.

15% of the vote is rigged.Might as well say Sanders needs to win 50% out of the remaining 85%.Or 59% to 41% of the voters.Democratic voters need to vote nearly 3 to 2 to defeat the "one whose turn it is" as decided by an out of touch bunch of elites.One person equals one vote in the democratic primary.But. But. But.You need to win 1.5 to 1 to win.This wasn't what Fowler jr. told us back in 2011 (see article). Unless one ones to assume that Sanders fit the mold of that dangerous insurgent candidate. Like Larouche, he is anti-war (not quite as much as the strict pacifist Larouche), so that makes him a dangerous radical.We were not sold this super delegate bowl of goods on the notion that Sanders was unfit to be President according to the all-knowing Democratic elites. And they called Larouche a "right-wing fascist" anyway (aside from his odd stance on HIV in the 1980s, nothing could be further from the truth), so who knows what the standard is?I want to know what exactly made Sanders unfit for a simple majority of Democrats to be trusted?Why does he need a super majority of (Democratic - Capital D) voters to win?

quote:

---

Bernie, and I really like Bernie, is too far to the left of the Democratic Party to garner the support needed to win the nomination of the party

---

Yea. He is a "radical" for being offended that poor people living in New Jersey, Texas, Maryland (or wherever) can only get Medicaid to cover perhaps half of the prescriptions they need (if they even are eligible for the program). He is extreme for feeling that poor people on Medicaid will die of a brain infection because - in Maryland for example - dental benefits are nonexistent for most problems including gum infections (which can spread).Bernie Sanders has views on health care being a human right, that have been popular enough in New York, that the voter-driven agenda has seen New York - long ago - be the one place in the country where poor get unprecedented coverage(people on Medicaid anyway). More $$$ are spent on health care in NY than anywhere in the world. It's amazing what a Medicaid program in New York covers compared to the other states. It's the difference between life and death. I had a friend who couldn't get a heart defibrillator in neighboring states (he felt is was necessary for survival), so he went to NY and got one quickly.There was a girl in Utah who had to have an open skull for 4 months after a doctor removed part of it BEFORE waiting for insurance companies to decide on whether to cover an operation.

quote:

---

Second, Hillary has that support and will skate into Philadelphia to accept the nomination based on pledged delegates alone.

---

Hillary doesn't think health care is a human right. She only won because the media anointed her early enough based on her huge (super) delegate lead. She was given the vital (in the USA) momentum that drives the voters attitudes and performance at the voting box.New Yorkers would have voted for Bernie if they hadn't been told for many months that it's all over (Hillary already won from the start according to the media and the sad thing was that is was so rigged that it was).I can't imagine why anybody who isn't biased and totally un-objective can say the things I just thought I heard AZPaul3 say.Did he really say them?Really?Here is the rest of his post.

quote:

---

Conspiracy nut.

​

15% are super delegates. They are all the Democratic Party members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, all serving Democratic Party Governors of states, the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party in each state and the members of the Democratic Leadership Council and the Democratic Party National Committee.

​

They were chosen because of their position. They are not chosen because they like Hillary. That is not "rigged".

​

They are free to support anyone they so chose. That is not "rigged".

​

This is the leadership of the party exercising some modicum of control over who best represents the philosophy and agenda of the Democratic Party. That is not "rigged"'

​

Because of her philosophy, her history, her work and her strength, a majority of those supers are supporting Hillary.

​

That's not "rigged". That is the party voice.

---

I'm pinching myself. (and I would be doing so regardless of whether or not he thinks that invoking the decade-long defunct DLC, as a wholesome censor of voters choices, will somehow help his already undemocratic argument pass as representative of anything reflecting average people's concerns and/or wishes.)

quote:

---

Its only been (almost) 5 years but that's OK. I miss-spoke too.

---

Do you know why the DLC collapsed?All they did was warn of the un-electability of anybody against the Iraq War, the "electoral disaster" for anybody anybody who supports meaningful "reforms" of any sort (aside from reforms that hurt peoples rights which they deem essential), and generally all they did was raise a stink and scream "liberal" "liberal" accusations at the top of their lungs 24/7.They collapsed because Obama won. It took all the wind out of their sails. They were sinking for a while before that.They were loosing members like crazy after John Breaux, Al From, et al raised such a stink over those who opposed the Iraq War. There were lots of DLC (average citizen types of) members who opposed the war, and they were disgusted to find out that the DLC was playing such a divisive role in dividing the party and pooping on primary after primary - then, when unsuccessful DLC candidates lost, going on temper tantrum mantras all the way to the general election and generally never shutting up.The DLCers were pretty offended at even the slightest reforms (in a direction of more coverage) of healthcare. The Larouche view of health care as a human right was simply too "Marxist" to even mention without a derogatory (discussion stopping smear) from the DLC brass and its once legion amounts of mouthpieces which made the collective DLC enterprise a well-invested corporate sponsored megaphone.I found it amazing you would say they were the deciders. They always insisted it was the people who made all the decisions.

quote:

---

The peoples concerns and wishes are all over the political map and no party can even come close to satisfying everyone no matter what they try to do. Again, it isn't the people's concerns and wishes that are being measured and determined but the Party's plan if chosen to rule by the people in November. The parties determine what their platforms and policies will be and the people then determine if one is more to their liking than the others and votes accordingly.

---

I think health care as a human right might just be something that has 50% support (and perhaps much more) across the nation. Lots of people have said for decades "I just might vote if health-care would be the issue at stake" but these are general election type of voters (that might not even understand the primary process and hate political parties so much that they don't even want to think about it much).Hillary has negatives of at least 54% and it is a disgrace that she even had a single "super-delegate" support her before all the voting was done. A disgrace!Hillary Clinton Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster

quote:

---

And I support that. I voted for him in the Arizona primary. He lost, but not by much. Not enough people, despite my personal best, believe. Yet.

​

You don't like Hillary. You don't like the process. Enough people do that it makes no difference what either of us think. We each have a decision to make. Go vote for Lyndon LaRouche if it makes you happy.

---

She is pro-war enough that many elite republicans (and nearly all neo-cons) like her much better than the presumptive GOP nominee.Were you referring to elite right-wingers?Voters you say?Well most voters like Bernie and especially his issue stances.The super delegates disagreed with Sanders "dangerous ideas" but the voters liked these dangerous ideas (like not supporting every last war over the last 24 years as Hillary did).You Lyndon LaRouche reference was an apt one though. If the elites don't like the ideas, then simply tamper with the arena so that the "arena of ideas" is a one-sided presentation of a quite distorted picture of what is at stake for voters and - THEN - how on earth can they make their vital decisions (what policy? what issue? what exactly? how exactly?).

This is interesting.Here is a conclusion by fact-checkers (it is weak on details though).PolitiFact | Did Hillary Clinton start the Obama birther movement?Here is a new CNN article (good one)Did Hillary Clinton start the birther movement? | CNN PoliticsThis site makes a decent case she did start it. Interesting as it also says Hillary questioned whether he was a Christian.Bombshell: 'Washington Post' Confirms Hillary Clinton Started the Birther MovementI wonder where Trump might go with this.This will be an interesting campaign.As much as I might dislike these two jokers, I think Jesse Ventura might be getting into the race. The most popular governor in the nation (based on approval ratings in his 1999-2003 term) verses these two semi-abominations.I actually might be excited about Hillary winning based on her UFO positions except for the fact that she is an extremely dishonest politician. Richard Dolan , on Coast to Coast, was sharing his expertise on government policies toward UFOs (he wrote a fantastic book on Disclosure), and George Norey asked him about Hillary Clinton's promises. Dolan said it would be exciting if she wasn't about as dishonest of a person as they come while conducting herself during campaigns. He suspects her UFO statements were just a trick to help herself appeal to young voters and might not mean much - if anything - when it comes to her policy implementations.Trump's anti-war positions, Hillary's UFO promises, etc. might make this one interesting.Throw in Jesse Ventura and you will have some interesting stuff for sure.

I remember when Mark Penn, on national television (MSNBC 2007), raised the issue of Obama supposedly using coke.The John Edwards campaign manager Joe Trippi , Obama manager David Axelrod, and Clinton manager Penn were all interviewed.Edwards manager, standing right beside Penn, dressed him down by shouting , (something like) "I think it's an outrage that the Hillary Clinton campaign has yet again raised this outrageous issue that Barak Obama has used cocaine".Was it on Hardball?It will be interesting if Trump reminds voters of this Hillary Clinton driven "Obama will be our first crackhead president" whispering campaign .I do find a lot of this interesting.Trump won't let her past crap slide.Trump is unique.

quote:

---

[jar]
Also I am really not sure it is not time to seriously re draw the map of the US; maybe break it down into four or five smaller Nation States.

---

There was just a (November 2015?) Bloomberg Business article that showed quality academic studies demonstrating that the decision of the U.K., Ireland, and Denmark to join the (precursor to the) EU in the 1970s resulting in a higher GDP of 25%, 50%, and 25% respectively for the nations.The (already implemented) reintroduction of (crippling)border checkpoints in the 28 EU states might throw the world into depression before long.However, on the other hand.The neo-cons might have much less military might to stir up the Middle East with 1/5 the GDP (5 different nations will hopefully disagree on foreign adventures) to work with at any given time.

quote:

---

[Tanypteryx]
And then we can expel the people we don't like.....all the assholes are deported to Mississippi.

---

An interesting state.Obama lost by 130,000 votes, in 2012, out of a state with 3 million people (55% to 44%).Blacks used to be 57% of the population (and still nearly half in the 1930s), but were stuck at around 35% since 1970. They were run out before they got voting rights (mid 60s). Had the black population increased with the nation from 1970 to 1016 then it would be about 45% black today, but is just 37% (perhaps 38% if you count mixed people that are part black) today.Young males - not just blacks - leave this state like crazy.The Hispanic population is hardly growing in this dead zone state. Finally reached about 3.2% in 2010-11 I think.State was 58% white in the last census (down from around 60-61% in 2000).As of (May?) of 2013 (based on numbers released May of 2015), whites were down to about 56%to 56.5% I think.Best to flood Mississippi with non-"assholes". (I assume you don't include blacks or liberals in your "ass-hole" assessment) Like the way liberals target-flooded Vermont in the 1970s. Vermont voted for more GOP presidential candidates than any other state till the 1992 trend started. Sanders election (1990) was the first time a congresscritter was elected that was a Democrat (well he was a member of their caucus after his swearing in in Jan 1991).I have made endless attempts to try to get blacks to return there, but none are interested. I get lectures about how redneckish their fellow blacks are in the south. Many blacks say they are scared to go to a restaurant in black southern towns. One (who wears winter caps all the time) told me that he was in a small Georgian (black)town with his wife and children, and when he went in, everyone in the restaurant stopped eating and stared at him. He got scared and ran to his car, telling his wife that they need to get out. Many have told me similar stories.Mississippi might be state where the CIA doesn't want economic investment, because a growing state would make it a Democratic-voting state (despite blacks being very conservative - even 36% voted in 2000 or 1998 to keep the confederate flag up) and possibly anti-war liberals might get elected. It would be like 60% non-white by now if it had growth like Texas or Florida.Robert Welch (of the John Birch Society), in the 1950s, said that the civil rights movement was a Soviet plot to make the south into (something like) a "Soviet negro-republic".

quote:

---

[Percy]
My prediction: Donald Trump and the Republican Party will make nice before the convention, though there will be many individual Republicans who refuse to have anything to do with him.

---

He just said he doesn't want the party united. He won't compromise with the neo-cons.Ted Cruz was a fake who picked the hawk Fiorina for his running mate.Trump is genuine in his anti neo-con views.

quote:

---

Locally in my own state of New Hampshire Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte says she will not be attending the convention. I like Kelly most of the time - a fair number of her votes seem sensible rather than political, but get a load of this piece of verbiage from a recent statement:

​

quote:
As she’s said from the beginning, Kelly plans to support the nominee. As a candidate herself, she hasn’t and isn’t planning to endorse anyone this cycle, said Liz Johnson, communications director for Kelly for New Hampshire.
Johnson said the senator is not endorsing Trump.

​

Ayotte supports but does not endorse Donald Trump? Uh, okay.

​

Many Republicans currently touching Trump with ten foot poles will get much closer as the election approaches, but probably not Ayotte. She's in a tight contest with current Democratic governor Maggie Hassan.

​

--Percy

---

Ayotte is a complete neo-con. This is why Trump is so cool.Trump is loosing badly to Hillary based on polls right now, but if he improves 5% in just 3 states (Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina)m then he is only trailing Hillary 285-253 in the Electoral College. Then that leaves the states where he needs to do 10% better (than present polls have him against Hillary) which naturally includes Virginia and Colorado (the typical "finish line" states) but also Iowa and New Hampshire. New York Times has a recent article and details.The last 2 states have a lot of anti-war Republicans. And same with Democrats..

quote:

---

Monday, May 9

​

Race/Topic

​

New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton Dartmouth Clinton 34, Trump 29 Clinton +5
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Sanders Dartmouth Sanders 49, Trump 28 Sanders +21

​

New Hampshire Senate - Ayotte vs. Hassan Dartmouth Ayotte 37, Hassan 35 Ayotte +2

​

realclearpolitics.com

---

Looks like New Hampshire is a 5 point race now.A NYT article ( days ago)said Trump trailed Clinton by less than 10.Here is the national general election Trump verses Clinton page.realclearpolitics.comClinton up 6.5% on average. Nationwide.In (diverse) North Carolina, Sanders leads Trump 55% to 37% while Clinton holds a (short lived IMO) 49% to 40% lead.So much for AzPaul and his claim of Clinton being stronger in states with diversity.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So now, both races are effectively over with both Hillary and Donald all but assured of nomination at the parties' conventions

---

Sanders has won 2 more since you and me were discussing the value of the insurgent taking 17 states to Hillary's 23. Indiana and West Virginia have brought him within 4 states of Hillary (now 19 verses 23) and Oregon and Kentucky (aside from Washington holding a primary, but Sanders already took the delegate determining caucus by about 70% to 30%) are up next Tuesday.(I should have put "determining", above, in quotation marks, because the super delegates ruin that one. Sanders won Nebraska easily a while back, and voters gave him 15 out of 25 delegates but all 3 super-delegates went to Hillary)In the general election, I forgot to add that Pennsylvania was one state that the NYT said Trump would win if he improved by 10% verses what the polls were saying (a week ago) he would get against Hillary.The Electoral Map Looks Challenging for Trump - The New York TimesOn May 4, NYT said, "Current national and battleground state polls have Mr. Trump trailing Mrs. Clinton by about 10 percentage points should they face off in the general election." Hillary would win 337 to 191 in the Electoral College. But if Trump did 5% better in just 3 states (North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio), then it would be just a 285 to 253 Hillary win.An improvement of 10% in all the states would give him Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.He actually is only down 6.4% among the RealClear average as of today.I already showed that he is only down by 5% in New Hampshire. But here are even newer polls in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

quote:

---

Florida: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 43, Trump 42 Clinton +1
Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 39, Trump 43 Trump +4
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 43, Trump 42 Clinton +1

​

Florida: Trump vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Trump 42, Sanders 44 Sanders +2
Ohio: Trump vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 43, Trump 41 Sanders +2
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 47, Trump 41 Sanders +6

​

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Trump 41 Clinton +6
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 50, Trump 39 Sanders +11

​

realclearpolitics.com

---

Why do I get the feeling we are looking at a President Trump?The super-delegates bear the blame if that happens.Sanders leads Trump by 18% in conservative North Carolina (the only Pro-life state on the entire east coast, though Pennsylvania is 50-50), so we know he can't loose to Trump.Sanders just can't loose to Trump.Clinton can and perhaps (probably?) very well will.

Bernie Sanders campaign: Dems 'court disaster' in Clinton | CNN Politics

quote:

---

Washington (CNN) Bernie Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver sent a sharply worded fundraising appeal on Wednesday, saying that Democrats "court disaster" by nominating Hillary Clinton.

​

He also insisted -- despite the fact that Sanders trails Clinton in both pledged delegates and superdelegates and faces a nearly impossible path to the nomination -- that there will be a contested Democratic National Convention.

​

"The Democratic Party must decide if they want the candidate with the momentum who is best positioned to beat (Donald) Trump or if they are willing to roll the dice and court disaster simply to protect the status quo for the political and financial establishment of this country," Weaver wrote.

​

He cited a "scary" Quinnipiac University poll of swing states Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania showing tight races between Clinton and presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump -- races that Sanders performed slightly better in, though within the poll's margin of error.

​

"Because we must do everything we can to defeat Trump in November, our mission is to win as many pledged delegates as we can between now and June 14," Weaver wrote. "Then we're going to have a contested convention."

---

We shall see if these are "super delegates" or "super jokers".The GOP race is decided.The Democratic race is still red hot for months to come.Sanders just clobbered Hillary in West Virginia, even winning the female vote, so Hillary's identity politics where she uses wedge issues to win the least common denominator clearly isn't working. On top of that, Sanders was only loosing, in a poll, by 1% in WV to Cruz while Clinton lost by 13%. Clinton lost to Trump by 27% and Sanders by 21%.There might be some evidence that Sanders could even put West Virginia in play.We need to spend our attention(at EVC and elsewhere) on the race that still is, not the one that was.All Trump comments should center around how he compares to Hillary verses how he compares to Sanders.Example.He is only relatively anti-war when matched verses Clinton.He is slightly more pro-war against Sanders.Bernie can still win the pledged delegate race if he gets like 66% of the vote in remaining states.But the super delegates should be considered up for grabs. Hillary can't mathematically win without supers.They make their final decision at the convention.

RCP Average 4/17 - 5/10 -- -- Clinton 47.3 Trump 41.6 Clinton +5.7
Gravis 5/10 - 5/10 1574 RV 2.5 Clinton 48 Trump 46 Clinton +2
PPP (D) 5/6 - 5/9 1222 RV 3.2 Clinton 47 Trump 41 Clinton +6
CNN/ORC 4/28 - 5/1 890 RV 3.5 Clinton 54 Trump 41 Clinton +13
Rasmussen Reports 4/27 - 4/28 1000 LV 3.0 Clinton 39 Trump 41 Trump +2
IBD/TIPP 4/22 - 4/28 814 RV 3.5 Clinton 47 Trump 40 Clinton +7
USA Today/Suffolk 4/20 - 4/24 1000 LV 3.0 Clinton 50 Trump 39 Clinton +11
GWU/Battleground 4/17 - 4/20 1000 LV 3.1 Clinton 46 Trump 43 Clinton +3Now it is about a 5% race between the two.Sanders has a 13% lead over Trump.Clinton is loosing in Ohio to Trump and the real shocker is that she is only ahead by 1 in Pennsylvania. Sanders leads by 6% in Democratic Pennsylvania.If a Democrat is fighting for Pennsylvania, then you know it is trouble. Gore won by 5% and Kerry won by 2%. Hillary is showing signs of a being a looser and even while Trump hasn't even begun to get into the swing of things.

Older polls are only useful when nothing newer is available to supersede them. They are always outdated, even when newer polls don't exist, but they are used so one at least has something to clue them in on where we are. Regardless, we have tons of newer ones.Here is an article that will clue us in on the situation.

quote:

---

Fearing Trump, some Democrats up pressure on Sanders to exit
LISA LERER and KEN THOMAS
Associated Press 12 hours ago .

​

WASHINGTON (AP) Pressure is mounting on Bernie Sanders to end his campaign for president, with Democratic Party leaders raising alarms that his continued presence in the race is undermining efforts to beat presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump this fall.

​

The new concerns come after Sanders recent wins over front-runner Hillary Clinton in Indiana and West Virginia. While those victories have provided his supporters a fresh sense of momentum heading into next weeks primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, they did almost nothing to help Sanders cut into Clintons nearly insurmountable lead in the delegates who will decide their party's nomination.

​

I don't think they think of the downside of this, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a Clinton supporter who hosted the 2008 meeting that brokered post-primary peace between Clinton and then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

​

It's actually harmful because she can't make that general-election pivot the way she should, Feinstein said. Trump has made that pivot.

​

Clinton, her aides and supporters have largely resisted calling on Sanders to drop out, noting that she fought her 2008 primary bid again Obama well into June. But now that Trump has locked up the Republican nomination, they fear the billionaire businessman is capitalizing on Sanders's decision to remain in the race by echoing his attacks and trying to appeal to the same independent, economically frustrated voters that back the Vermont senator.

---

Interesting that Sanders is doing well against Trump without some fake "pivot" gimmick.I thought Trump was supposed to be the easy one to beat. We used to be told that Sanders was unelectable before all the polls - 1000s - told a different story over and over again.Anyway, we have these wonderful super-delegates to make sure the electable candidate wins.Let the supers do their super job.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Hillary is loosing to Trump by about 4% while Sanders leads Trump by 5%.Diane Feinstein said that Democrats need to do a "pivot" to the "center" to win nationwide.Well that uncompromising "socialist" is not only leading nationwide, but he is leading in this large deep-south state.Sanders needs to stay in the race because he is also winning in Florida (by a few) and in North Carolina (by 18%). He has a big lead in Virginia. If Sanders is ahead in South Carolina (I doubt it but who knows), then that is the entire east coast.The Feinstein b.s. is disguising the fact that the facts demand that we should urge Sanders to stay in the race so Democrats can win(I don't care too much about the political parties mind you, but that aside).

[ The content of this message was mostly cut-n-pastes, so it was removed and sent to author in a PM. --Admin ]Edited by Admin, : Removed content.