2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Maximus]

Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton   Quinnipiac   Clinton 39, Trump 43   Trump +4
Ohio: Trump vs. Sanders   Quinnipiac   Sanders 43, Trump 41   Sanders +2

Not sure what's surprising there. It's consistent with national polling for the last 4 months or so. The question is whether Clinton will sacrifice the country to Trump to maintain her grip on the party.

[Valmy]

The question is whether Clinton will sacrifice the country to Trump to maintain her grip on the party.

What precedent is there for a candidate getting the most votes dropping out for the good of the party?

Besides Sanders is a dangerous demagogue with catastrophic ideas so I don't see how putting him in power helps the country much. Jack up taxes and tear up all our international agreements? Genius.

[Jacob]

What precedent is there for a candidate getting the most votes dropping out for the good of the party?

It's a pretty damn spurious argument. "Look, I couldn't beat you so how about you drop out and let me run? It'll totally be better."

[Maximus]

What precedent is there for a candidate getting the most votes dropping out for the good of the party?

Not for the good of the party; for the good of the country. Not sure that enters her calculations though.

Besides Sanders is a dangerous demagogue with catastrophic ideas so I don't see how putting him in power helps the country much. Jack up taxes and tear up all our international agreements? Genius.

Yea, he's a real radical in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.

[Eddie Teach]

It's a pretty damn spurious argument. "Look, I couldn't beat you so how about you drop out and let me run? It'll totally be better."

Except the two elections are completely different beasts. In the primaries it matters very little if you can appeal to independents/cross party voters. In the general election, they are usually decisive.

[Jacob]

Not for the good of the party; for the good of the country. Not sure that enters her calculations though.

It shouldn't enter her calculations. The argument being made is not very good.

[Maximus]

It shouldn't enter her calculations. The argument being made is not very good.

The good of the country shouldn't enter the calculations of the country's leaders?

[Barrister]

What precedent is there for a candidate getting the most votes dropping out for the good of the party?

Not for the good of the party; for the good of the country. Not sure that enters her calculations though.

Besides Sanders is a dangerous demagogue with catastrophic ideas so I don't see how putting him in power helps the country much. Jack up taxes and tear up all our international agreements? Genius.

Yea, he's a real radical in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.

I'm no Hillary fan, but that's just a goofy argument to make.  Hillary is handily beating Sanders, both in term s of votes and delegates (both pledged and superdelegates).  The RCP poll of polls has Clinton up 6 points over Trump.  Yes, it has Sanders 13 points up on Trump, but both (if true) would be quite solid victories.

I argued against Cruz trying to take the nomination ahead of Trump through delegate shenanigans because it would be anti-democratic.  A deal where Clinton bows out in favour of Sanders "for the good of the country" would be equally anti-democratic.

[Jacob]

Except the two elections are completely different beasts. In the primaries it matters very little if you can appeal to independents/cross party voters. In the general election, they are usually decisive.

You know another thing that matters? Get out the vote organization, where Clinton beats Sanders hands down.

Besides, it's far from clear that Sanders would be better at appealing to independents/ cross party voters than Clinton.

[Jacob]

The good of the country shouldn't enter the calculations of the country's leaders?

No, the spurious argument is that a Sanders candidacy would be better for the country than the Clinton one.

[Barrister]

Except the two elections are completely different beasts. In the primaries it matters very little if you can appeal to independents/cross party voters. In the general election, they are usually decisive.

You know another thing that matters? Get out the vote organization, where Clinton beats Sanders hands down.

Besides, it's far from clear that Sanders would be better at appealing to independents/ cross party voters than Clinton.

Actually Sanders GOTV efforts have been found to be very strong.  That's why he does so well in caucus states.

Clinton, on the other hand, just gets more votes.

[Maximus]

I argued against Cruz trying to take the nomination ahead of Trump through delegate shenanigans because it would be anti-democratic.  A deal where Clinton bows out in favour of Sanders "for the good of the country" would be equally anti-democratic.

Let's not pretend there's anything democratic about the parties getting to decide who the voters get to vote for.

[Maximus]

You know another thing that matters? Get out the vote organization, where Clinton beats Sanders hands down.

link?

[Barrister]

I argued against Cruz trying to take the nomination ahead of Trump through delegate shenanigans because it would be anti-democratic.  A deal where Clinton bows out in favour of Sanders "for the good of the country" would be equally anti-democratic.

Let's not pretend there's anything democratic about the parties getting to decide who the voters get to vote for.

I dunno, having millions of people go out to vote for which candidates they want to represent each party sounds pretty democratic to me...

[Admiral Yi]

Let's not pretend there's anything democratic about the parties getting to decide who the voters get to vote for.

This was Trump's argument, not Bernie's.  Primary voters are choosing Hillary.