RedRob72 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Clinton still 2/9 to win the democratic nomination, drifting slightly from 2/11. Outright betting on next President, Clinton 10/11 and Trump 3/1 currently with most sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Clinton still 2/9 to win the democratic nomination, drifting slightly from 2/11. i think she will win it, but I hope the Democratic 'movement' in the US keeps the same demographic trend that I think the YES campaign will. Younger and middle age people appear to want real change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 So Sanders won the primary 62:38, which has to be considered a thumping success for him. There is no way Hilary can spin it in a positive way. However, what goes on in the Republican primary is much more important, as it has chosen the eventual nominee every time since 1968. Trump winning 35% of the vote compared to his nearest rivals getting 11% of the vote. Has to be a powerful indicator that Trump is going to win the eventual nomination. I suspect Rubio's disappointing numbers can be put down to him floundering during the recent debate. As for the Democrat race, I think it's too close to call as things stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossbill Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Sanders may have won the vote, but it looks like Clinton will walk away from New Hampshire with at least an equal share of the delegates due to the preferences of the superdelegates. She may even be ahead It's going to be even more of an uphill struggle for him to win the candidacy than I had appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wotad Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Sanders may have won the vote, but it looks like Clinton will walk away from New Hampshire with at least an equal share of the delegates due to the preferences of the superdelegates. She may even be ahead It's going to be even more of an uphill struggle for him to win the candidacy than I had appreciated. i wonder if Sanders will get a boost for the next vote he needs it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Miliband-esque. It was. Imagine that representing America in a crucial summit with Putin. Putin with tear him to ribbons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow-sheep Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Sanders may have won the vote, but it looks like Clinton will walk away from New Hampshire with at least an equal share of the delegates due to the preferences of the superdelegates. She may even be ahead It's going to be even more of an uphill struggle for him to win the candidacy than I had appreciated. Wtf is a super delegate and how the hell is that democratic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wotad Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Wtf is a super delegate and how the hell is that democratic? Democracy is slowly dying in Europe and America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Wtf is a super delegate and how the hell is that democratic? It's a bit like how MPs tend to get an extra level of voting clout over ordinary party members when political parties in the UK select a new party leader. Senators, governors etc get to be delegates alongside the ones that are selected in the primaries. That favours Clinton, but that isn't the only problem for Bernie Sanders. Iowa and New Hampshire are very white in population terms and he has struggled to gain support among black and Hispanic voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The way I understand it, what they're essentially doing with these primaries is electing delegates to go to the party conference. Those who want to be delegates announce beforehand which candidate they'll support, but there are also these superdelegates that don't need to be elected and can vote for whichever candidate they want. Am I right? I'm sure the actual presidential election works in a similar way too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wotad Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The way I understand it, what they're essentially doing with these primaries is electing delegates to go to the party conference. Those who want to be delegates announce beforehand which candidate they'll support, but there are also these superdelegates that don't need to be elected and can vote for whichever candidate they want. Am I right? I'm sure the actual presidential election works in a similar way too i thought these super delegates are counted as more then one , super weird system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 It's a bit like how MPs tend to get an extra level of voting clout over ordinary party members when political parties in the UK select a new party leader. Senators, governors etc get to be delegates alongside the ones that are selected in the primaries. That favours Clinton, but that isn't the only problem for Bernie Sanders. Iowa and New Hampshire are very white in population terms and he has struggled to gain support among black and Hispanic voters. I can't claim to have any in depth knowledge of US culture but I find it hard to understand why Democratic ethnic miorities are more 'small c' conservative than their white counterparts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I can't claim to have any in depth knowledge of US culture but I find it hard to understand why Democratic ethnic miorities are more 'small c' conservative than their white counterparts.Because we are at a point in time when a lot of these ethnic minorites have now actually "made" it,if that makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Because we are at a point in time when a lot of these ethnic minorites have now actually "made" it,if that makes sense I'm sure that's the case but I'm also fairly certain that in overall terms ethnic minorities still have a lower standard of living than their white counterparts. Yet huge swathes of white Democratic supporters are looking for a more radical solution; particularly under 45's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Democracy is slowly dying in Europe and America.I'm slowly dying every time I read one of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 There's also the fact that many of the countries that share a continent with the USA have a recent history of far-left regimes. The Cuban American population seem as right wing as they come e.g. I'd imagine it's a similar situation as Eastern Europe being largely pretty right wing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arabdownunder Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I can't claim to have any in depth knowledge of US culture but I find it hard to understand why Democratic ethnic miorities are more 'small c' conservative than their white counterparts. Not so much a question of right vs left, more that Clinton (Bill) is seen by minority communities as having a pretty good record in delivering for them, and they expect Hillary to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Wtf is a super delegate and how the hell is that democratic? Primaries and caucuses aren't democratic. They're not meant to be. It's really a selection process rather than an election process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Not so much a question of right vs left, more that Clinton (Bill) is seen by minority communities as having a pretty good record in delivering for them, and they expect Hillary to do the same. This. It's track record stuff. The Clinton Administration was seen as a success story especially for African Americans on both jobs and civil rights. Sanders, by contrast, hasn't really got much of a track record with these communities, having basically spent a lifetime running a city in one of the whitest states in the Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Wtf is a super delegate and how the hell is that democratic? Is essentially allowing the politicians within Democratic party to allocate their own delegate vote. A system that's designed to favour the establishment candidate. The system came about because the Democratic party were getting sick of not getting their chosen candidates, and believing it was costing them elections. The problem with the system is not so much the existence of it, but the fact that they have too many delegate votes. If Sanders comfortably wins the popular vote, but loses the race on the sole basis of superdelegate votes, then that could lead to civil war within the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.