Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

4-20-16 1:55 am ETBoth Trump and Clinton blow out their opponents by large margins. Also note total vote count: Democrats by 2:1 over Republicans. Present delegate count: Next up are Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island on April 26Up for grabs then will be 172 Republican delegates and 462 Democrat delegates.Us world domination types have already determined the vote and delegate count for next Tuesday but we won't reveal this in advance since it would destroy the illusion that other peoples' votes actually count. We've had enough of those cracks in our faade already these past couple weeks.Edited by AZPaul3, : Illuminati disclaimer Edited by AZPaul3, : fixed graphic

I watched Ted Cruz give some pre-primary remarks where he attempted to lower expectations prior to the voting in New York. He indicated that anything less than an above 50 percent performance (in a three candidate field) by Trump would be considered a loss. The 60 point blow out surely marked a complete washing out for Ted who finished last. I am expecting that Ted will spin the rejection of his valued by NYers as some kind of validation.I fully expect a brokered Republican convention at this point.On the democratic front, Sander's inability to win in states like NY while stomping Hilary in places like Alaska and Wisconsin continued. If turns out that you can actually win a nomination in the way Sanders success reflects, and also the way Trump is proceeding, we should be extremely concerned. Sanders must find a way to do better more universally.

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.I don't know why people find the concept so hard to grasp, but a bad argument is a bad argument and being right does not validate a bad argument. Anyone can use an argument that includes division by zero to establish that 2 equals 2. The problem is that such arguments can also be used to prove that 1 equals 2.In this case you are writing posts in an environment were many people disagree. So asking about your sources is a valid request, particular regarding matters of opinion and evaluation, such as 'are the republican rules fair or fascist?'

That seems another false analogy; there is no reason fascist rules might not also be fair.When it comes to the primary process though the question of fair or unfair really is irrelevant. The various state Republican organizations certainly have the right to determine how they will apportion representation at the National convention.

I assume you mean a false dichotomy. I did not present an analogy.What you say is in principle correct, and I am not arguing here whether the GOP rules are 'right'. I have an opinion about that, but I am not defending that opinion for Big Al. The question was just an example of an inquiry whose answer might be strongly influenced by opinion. The exact question does not matter and one might have the opinion that the GOP rules are unfair because they are fascist even if the rules are perfectly legitimate and are applied in an even handed manner. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I agree, Bernie is reaching lots of non voting couch locked pot smokers that are not getting registered or out to the polls. Ok maybe that is a exaggeration.I think Hillary is the consummate politician though. She has been in this dog and pony show before and she has had years to raise money and plan campaigning strategies. She is going to be tough to beat. I just do not see a old angry white social revolutionist getting enough people fired up to cast enough ballots in his direction. Hillary is the establishment front runner and she seems to be the media and the Party's anointed one. I voted for Bernie and will of course vote for him if he somehow pulls a hat trick. But I am not going to count on it. The winds of change are blowing, but they are correcting in a El Nino familiar pattern of business as usual.
Big Banks, Oil, War the triumvirate of US policy are beckoning Hillary.

Yes, dichotomy would be a better choice.

As do I.This primary season Trump has been capturing just less than half the delegates being elected. If this rate continues Trump will enter the convention with just under the required delegates for first ballot nomination. This is where the lack of a ground game in the caucus states, like Colorado and Wyoming, hurt the Trump effort. Relying solely on vote totals to earn delegates Trump has done well, but getting your supporters into caucuses and getting them elected to the state conventions where the delegates for the national convention are selected has been missing. Unless there is major success, well over 50%, in the remaining primaries, there will be no first ballot nomination in Cleveland.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

A recent article in Politico (Donald Trump cracks open his wallet) reports that Donald Trump loaned his campaign an additional $11.5 million in March. It adds that Trump has received a total of $12.2 million in mostly small donations, and has loaned his campaign a total of $36 million. Of course a loan is not a donation, but I'm curious to what extent Trump's money has made possible his run for the Republican nomination. Could he have gotten those loans from elsewhere if he weren't wealthy and couldn't provide the loans himself? I don't think so. In my opinion the Trump run wouldn't be possible without Trump money.We need campaign reform all over the place, and not the kind of campaign sabotage committed by the Supreme Court when they decided money was speech.--Percy

Are you supposed to not use your own money for your own campaign?

Trump is famous for being a mogul who started on his way with a huge helping hand from his parentsw. Without his money, there would be no Trump. I cannot stand Trump. I don't want him anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania DC But is his campaign really the primary issue at which campaign finance reform efforts such as overturned in Citizens United were targeted? If Trump is spending his own money, then it is pretty hard to make the claim that there is outside corporate influence over his campaign. We know that he is not being bought by Big Oil, Big Pharma etc.Citizen's United is bad law, but I understand the constitutional issues at stake that underlie the reluctance to limit participation in campaigns by money. But trying to limit candidates use of their own money on their campaigns is a far more troublesome idea, constitutionally. I wonder what form you think regulation in this area should take, but I know better than to ask for a proposal after you did not offer one.Lawyers often say that bad circumstances lead to the making of bad law. Trumps don't spring up every day, and I am fairly confident in the GOP's ability to take care of their own ship. I'd be interested in hearing what a legislative attempt to derail Trump or other 'Hitlers' from trying to seek office, but I some means of going about that are worse than the problem.

Having laws that allow the wealthy to use as much money as they wish to fund a political campaign, whether their own or someone else's, distorts, even perverts, the democratic process.--Percy

How so?I'm not being flippant, I'm just completely ignorant of political processes.

The problematic principle established by the Supreme Court is that money is speech. I don't know the law or the constitution the way you do, but my understanding is that you can trace the roots way back before the Citizen's United ruling. Doing a quick Google I found mentions of a Buckley v Valeo decision - I never heard of it, but maybe you have? Anyway, it's the Supreme Court's position that money is speech that I was referring to, not a specific decision like Citizen's United. As I said to Cat Sci, allowing money to be speech distorts and perverts the democratic process. I only object when you accuse without asking. I don't believe the wealthy should be allowed to pour as much money as they want into a political campaign, whether their own or someone else's.--Percy