US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3569

On April 08 2016 00:36 Sent. wrote:
If Bernie and/or Trump run 3rd party, what happens when none of the candidates reaches 50+% of votes? Second round?

Sanders’s latest broadside came after Clinton questioned Sanders’s recent comments about banking reform, which she said raised “a lot of questions” about whether he had done his “homework” on one of his signature issues. A Post article about those Clinton comments (which the Sanders campaign circulated) said: “Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president.” Clinton didn’t flatly say that Sanders is unqualified, though.

Regardless, Sanders responded at a rally last night as if she had say that:

“She has been saying lately that she thinks I am quote-unquote not qualified to be president.

“Let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton, I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is through her Super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest money. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

“I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you’ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs.”

Source

On April 08 2016 01:13 LegalLord wrote:

If no one reaches 270 electoral votes then the House chooses the president.

On April 08 2016 01:17 farvacola wrote:
The electoral college isn't bound to the popular vote, and I've got a some subprime mortgages to sell you if you think they'll let the house choose the president lol

On April 08 2016 01:22 Plansix wrote:

We would be in the most uncharted of waters if that took place. But I doubt it would happen. 3rd party bids normally end in whimpers and don't make a dent in the popular vote. I don't expect this to be any different.

On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern.

Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court

Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.

And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.

As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.

While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond.

On April 08 2016 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:


Hold the fuck up. So Trump is able to ensure a Kasich presidency by running 3rd party?

On April 08 2016 00:54 Ghanburighan wrote:
You think Sanders had it bad from Daily News:

https://twitter.com/mlcalderone/status/717879834572009472

On April 08 2016 01:13 Ghanburighan wrote:
I always find it difficult to figure out how news influences votes (if it does at all), but here's something that might lean women even more heavily towards Hillary:



And my news feeds are showing backlash among women:

https://twitter.com/SlaughterAM/status/718106974806794240

On April 08 2016 01:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Well, since most states are winner-take-all for electoral votes, it would have to involve him pulling from Clinton more than Kasich (which seems unlikely) or actually winning some blue states outright by beating Clinton without the support of the anti-Trumps (which also seems unlikely).

April 7 (Reuters) - The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s secret method for unlocking the iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino shooters will not work on newer models, FBI Director James Comey said.

“We have a tool that works on a narrow slice of phones,” Comey said at a conference on encryption and surveillance at Kenyon University in Ohio late on Wednesday.

Comey added that the technique would not work on the iPhone 5s and the later models iPhone 6 and 6s. The iPhone 5c model was introduced in 2013 and has since been discontinued by Apple as newer models have become available.

The Justice Department said in March it had unlocked the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone with the help of an unidentified third party and dropped its case against Apple Inc, ending a high-stakes legal clash but leaving the broader fight over encryption unresolved.

As the technique cannot be used to break into newer models, law enforcement authorities will likely have to lean on Apple to help them access the devices involved in other cases.

On April 08 2016 01:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Well, since most states are winner-take-all for electoral votes, it would have to involve him pulling from Clinton more than Kasich (which seems unlikely) or actually winning some blue states outright by beating Clinton without the support of the anti-Trumps (which also seems unlikely).

On April 07 2016 16:59 Soularion wrote:
If anything, I think 'Hillary has jumped the shark in regards of attracting young, liberal voters' is a much more fair statement considering she's already struggled with the group and going after Sanders/young people so hard in the past week is sure to only alienate them further.

On April 08 2016 02:21 cLutZ wrote:


Yes. Trump running 3rd ensures a Hillary 350+ EV majority because she wins almost every state even if she only gets 40% (ironically, the Trump primary plan).

Hillary + Cruz + Trump + Bernie all running in the general ensures...madness. Its possible that one will end up with 270 EVs because the plurality winner (Probably Hillary or Cruz) could win a lot of states at 30-35% vote totals. Or Trump/Bernie support could end up being more malleable, meaning that party's nominee would likely win (Hillary seems most likely) or it goes to the House if states (note votes mind you, Lincoln won a ton of electoral votes at 40%) split up enough. That would mean probably a Paul Ryan or Cruz presidency.

But the reason that is unlikely is also because most states have sore loser laws (like Ohio) so if you participate in a primary, but don't get that party's nomination you cannot get on the ballot.

On April 08 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:

People often forget about the sore loser rules to prevent election disruption. Its why I find the talks of the Trump 3rd party turn amusing.