Cruz Drops Out

[_The CCC]

Nate silver and 538 have been a disaster in this cycle. There has been no poll or analyst that has accurately foreseen the trump or Sanders results.

And do not discount the effect that the superdelegates had on this campaign. Yes Hillary has more votes. But the superdelegates contributed to that momentum. She is in trouble. She can't beat a Socialist in a fair fight. She will be moving both left and right after the California primary. She is in deep s***.

The Republicans don't have super delegates, and we've seen what a mess that's produced. Bernie has already force Hilary farther left than her normal stances.

[_moksha]

Two things made that alleged quote from Trump seem real:

1. Viewers have been continually lied to by Fox News and therefore,

2. These viewers are reality damaged and will eat up whatever Donald Trump tells them if he does so with raving arrogance. Raving arrogance will let them see the countenance of Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh on Trump's face.

That precise quote from Trump to People Magazine was false.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm sexually attracted to horses

This actually explains some things.

[_MeDotOrg]

I'm sexually attracted to horses

This actually explains some things.

Whatever floats your boat...

[_Maksutov]

Whatever floats your boat...

Hey you guys weren't in that Sundance movie, were you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(film)

[_honorentheos]

This thread illustrates one of the real challenges of the democratic systems. That being, we tend to vote emotionally rather than rationally. But confabulate justifications for our emotion-based behavior to pretend they are rational, making it unlikely we'll take a step back to reassess.

One thing I think many Bernie supporters forget is that while he caucused with the Democrats in the Senate he deliberately positioned himself as an outsider to the party itself, and at odds with it's core. While the primary has helped highlight that younger voters, and the future of the democratic party, are probably closer to Sanders than they are the current party center, the primary seasons of a Presidential election are never about the center. The election is about to shift away from him, even if he were the nominee. Regarding the next 5 months, most Americans could probably already distill the marketing about both likely nominees: Trump is arrogant, bigoted, and under-qualified. Hillary is untrustworthy. The general election is going to be those two messages turned up to 13.

ETA: If the election were a hand of poker, having Trump be the nominee for the Republican party is like having a wild card face up in the community cards. There are few certainties at that point. Even still, I have to imagine that many Americans would have a far harder time with Sanders than seems to be the feeling among those who support him. Clinton needs Sanders supporters and the Democratic primary was very tame comparatively speaking. Running ads about Bernie's vision for bigger government and social programs with photos of Sanders cavorting in Soviet Russia like this? -



- not sure how that would have played in Peoria.

[_subgenius]

This thread illustrates one of the real challenges of the democratic systems. That being, we tend to vote emotionally rather than rationally.

Your assumption that rational presides over emotional on all things "political" is unfounded. The further assumption that rational and emotional hold different "values" is also unfounded and nonsensical. What is more "challenging" is how people, seemingly like you, use "common parlance" to make decisions -
"In common parlance, “rational” stands in opposition to “emotional,” yet many psychologists agree that emotion informs rational decision making."
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1 ... zcSk9.dpuf

"decision-making isn’t logical, it’s emotional, according to the latest findings in neuroscience. -- Antonio Damasio made a groundbreaking discovery. He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn’t make decisions." (emphasis mine)
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/deci ... ion-making

Personally I vote via my inner Captain Kirk, not beholden to Spock or Bones.

One thing I think many Bernie supporters forget is that while he caucused with the Democrats in the Senate he deliberately positioned himself as an outsider to the party itself, and at odds with it's core.

Perhaps more correct to state that he positioned himself, ironically, outside of contemporary political models...much like Trump, Bernie hoped to be one who disrupts the system.

[_The CCC]

SEE http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/0 ... ocrat-now/

[_honorentheos]

This thread illustrates one of the real challenges of the democratic systems. That being, we tend to vote emotionally rather than rationally.

Your assumption that rational presides over emotional on all things "political" is unfounded. The further assumption that rational and emotional hold different "values" is also unfounded and nonsensical. What is more "challenging" is how people, seemingly like you, use "common parlance" to make decisions -
"In common parlance, “rational” stands in opposition to “emotional,” yet many psychologists agree that emotion informs rational decision making."
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1 ... zcSk9.dpuf

"decision-making isn’t logical, it’s emotional, according to the latest findings in neuroscience. -- Antonio Damasio made a groundbreaking discovery. He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn’t make decisions." (emphasis mine)
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/deci ... ion-making

Don't be silly, subby. The findings behind The Hidden Brain, How We Decide, and all the other pop science books on the subject that came out 10 years ago are well-trod ground. The entire point of that era in pop science was to shed light on how emotion worked as a significant influence on our decision making. But that was both for the negative and positive with the point being one should become more aware of this dynamic to be a better decision maker. That includes working to insert executive control when it's missing and trusting one's gut when one is stuck overthinking a decision.

Sometimes I wonder about you, though. Like, I'm guessing you weren't thinking with either when you said -

Personally I vote via my inner Captain Kirk, not beholden to Spock or Bones.

because



But then again, it makes sense.

One thing I think many Bernie supporters forget is that while he caucused with the Democrats in the Senate he deliberately positioned himself as an outsider to the party itself, and at odds with it's core.

Perhaps more correct to state that he positioned himself, ironically, outside of contemporary political models...much like Trump, Bernie hoped to be one who disrupts the system.

Bernie positioned himself outside of the democratic party a long time ago. I suspect it's better said he made adjustments to align himself with the party just enough to be able to run as a Democrat because he believes in his ideology which isn't aligned well with either mainstream party's platforms but doing so was the best chance he had of influencing the Presidential race. His positioning is almost the opposite of Trumps whose positioning has nothing to do with ideology as far as I can tell.

[_subgenius]

... has nothing to do with ideology as far as I can tell.

Yes, "running for President" - how difficult it must be to see any similarity.
Ideology is what the election is always about and Bernie/Trump are almost indistinguishable with their goals. There is little ideological difference between "free college" and "border wall".