ZDA, volitve 2016 in politična ureditev

bambam20 je 4. mar 2016 ob 19:59 izjavil:

Grdoba od Miley Cyrus je izjavila, da bo v primeru zmage Trumpa zapustila USA. Američani so množično navdušeni. Jaz tudi.

Miley ni edina. 'How to move to Canada' searches up 1000% in the US after Trump Super Tuesday win

Nic prostora zate ker si migrant

sicer star video ampak ti pove bistvo



common sense , bravo trump

in potem jeb ki govori kaj mu govorijo njegovi "donorji" etc

#trump2016

Odin je 5. mar 2016 ob 05:06 izjavil:

Miley ni edina. 'How to move to Canada' searches up 1000% in the US after Trump Super Tuesday win

Zakaj Kanada? Ni mi jasno zakaj noben noce it v Mehiko..

Povej mi, kdo od Slovencev, ki ni po rodu iz Bosne bi šel dol živet ? Nihče. To je isto. Mehika = Bosna.

Release of Clinton Documents Delayed After State Department Discovers 'Thousands' of Unsearched Records

Saj se zavedaš, da če ni zidu na meji, to še ne pomeni, da si prisiljen živeti v Mehiko?

Ko nismo imeli ograje na Hrvaški meji te nihče ni silil živeti na Hrvaško. Kje je tukaj povezava? Zakaj rabiš zid, da ti "ne bo treba živeti v Mehiki"? Sedaj ni zidu, pa ti kljub temu ni treba živeti v Mehiko.

Zakaj rabiš zid, da ti "ne bo treba živeti v Mehiki"?

Zid rabis, zato ker se ljudje mnozicno sem priseljujejo na nelegalen nacin. To potem pomeni, da imajo tudi Mehiski karteli prosti vhod. Tukaj imas clanek kako je El Chapo (sef Sinaloa kartela) lani prosto prisel v Ameriko - link. Ta isti El Chapo je lani obljubil $100M tistemu ki mu prinese Trumpovo glavo, ker je bil uzaljen zaradi zida.

Levicarji so seveda na El Chapovi strani (ogromno jih tudi poziva k atentatu na Trumpa) in zagovarjajo odprte meje, a hkrati hocejo ti dvolicnezi ziveti cim bolj stran od ljudi ki prihajajo sem. Kanada ima samo 3% crncev in samo 1.2% latinotov - samo se en dokaz da so danasnjih illiberalnih regresivcev najvecji dvolicnezi in rasisti.

V Evropi lahko vidimo podobno dvolicnost v Avstriji ali Nemciji kjer so zagovarjali odprte meje in se zgrazali nad Madzarsko, danes pa hocejo naredit vse da se teh migrantov znebijo.

zid zato da ne bodo droge kar na izi tihotapili

Ena odlicna stvar ki se je zgodila od politicnega prihoda Trumpa je da so ga mediji na tako gnusen nacin napadli in ga hoteli diskvalificirat. Ker je v illiberalni "pravljici" vse tezje zivet in ker je celi sistem zgrajen na nekih utvarah je delo medijev vse tezje in tezje da vzdrzujejo to pravljico. Zato so morali napast Trumpa s tako velikimi lazmi, da je ljudem bolj kot kdarkoli jasno da ne morejo zaupat medijem cisto nic. Primerjanje Trumpa s Hitlerjem je tako neumestno da se mora vsak, ki se magari cisto malo spozna na zgodovino, malo vsciptnit da preveri ali ima samo nocno moro. Ko so hoteli mediji dokazat da je Trump neki Ku Klux Klan leader je vecini spet popolnoma jasno da mediji svojih lazi sploh skrivajo ne vec.

Vcasih je bil Walter Cronkite (CBS novinar od 1962-81) najbolj verodostojen clovek v Ameriki, ker se je zelo trudi da je bil nepristranski in odkrit v svojem delu.
Pred tremi leti je samo 6% Americanov menilo da so mediji zelo verodostojni medtem ko jih je 42% menilo da niso zaupanja vredni (link).
Danes 60% Americanov ne zaupa medijem (link). Podobno je drugod na Zahodu. Anketa od BBC/Routers/The Media Center iz leta 2006:

Americans (59%) and Russians (58%) express similar levels of trust in their media “to operate in the best interests of society.”
In the four other countries surveyed, media is more distrusted than trusted, including in the UK where only 47 percent have trust in the media, South Korea (45%), Brazil (45%), and Germany (43%).

Illiberalci in regresivci so se infiltrirali v skoraj cisto vse institucije (od drzave do medijev in tudi vere) in zaupanje tem institucijam je veliko nizje kot pa celo pred desetletjem. To je ZELO SLAB ZNAK. Spomnim se ko me je pred par leti ta trend skrbel ker sem si mislil da bo to mogoce vodilo v konflikt. Danes je jasno da se hisa iz kart sesuva in da je konflikt neizobezen. Zelo me pa skrbi na kaksen nacin se bo ta konflikt razresil in kaksne bodo posledice. Najbolj optimisticen scenarij je da se bo ta sistem sesul tako kot se je v Sovjetski Zvezi. Trump, ki ni okuzen s to illiberalno boleznijo, je eden redkih kandidatov ki ima vsaj neko minimalno moznost da na nek miren nacin razsuje te pravljice in popelje ZDA nazaj v realnost. Sanse niso velike, ampak jih vsaj ima za razliko od drugih kandidatov.

http://usadailypolitics.com/dangerous-a...

najverjetneje že kje v kehi

Čez 15 minut se začenja Super Saturday:
Kansas
Kentucky (Republicans only)
Louisiana
Maine (Republicans only)
Nebraska (Democrats only)

TYT Live Election Coverage and Reaction

Sanders zmagal v dveh drzavah: Kansas in Nebraska, Hilary v Louisiani. Pa kljub temu Hilary vec delegatov, ker je v juznjaski Louisiani naredila veliko razliko.

Rea blesavo: v drzavah, v katerih katerikoli dem. kandidat nima sanse, Clinton dobiva delegate z veliko vecino. In to ji daje prednost.

Sanders bo dobil se Maine, pa bo komaj kaksnega delegata v prednosti.

Jah, zelo mozno, da kandidat zmaga v vecih drzavah, pa ima manj delegatov, ker je v nekaj drzavah zgubil z veliko razliko... blesavo, ni kaj.

Lahko kdo razloži tole:

Colorado - Sanders 59% (38 delegatov), Hilary 40% (38 delegatov)

Iowa - Sanders 49,6% (21 delegatov), Hilyry 49,9% (29 delegatov)

Massachusetts - Sanders 48,7% (46 delegatov), Hilary 50,1% (63 delegate)

Minnesota - Sanders 61,6% (47 delegatov), Hilary 38,4% (40 delegatov)

Nebraska - Sanders 56,4% (14 delegatov), Hilary 43,6% (13 delegatov)

New Hampshire - Sanders 60,4% (15 delegatov), Hilary 38% (15 delegatov)

Skratka: vedno ko zmaga Sanders z večjo razliko, je število kandidatov približno enako, ko zmaga Hilary samo za par procentov ima pa mnogo več delegatov.

This was fun to watch:

Odin, ta tvoja osnovnošolska taktika ("To si ti, kaj sem pa jaz?"), ko progresivce označuješ za regresivce

Tukaj je en video od vceraj zakaj je danasnja levica illiberalna in regresivna - LINK.

Novinarka s takimi stalisi bi pred 20 leti veljala za cisto levico, ki je vsaj na nek nacin delovala liberalno in progresivno. Danes jo illiberalna in regresivna levica poliva z urinom. Levica pred 20 leti in levica danes imata skupno samo ime.

Ugani katero levico danes podpirajo mediji.

Tukaj je reakcija novinarke minuto po tem ko so jo polili z urinom - LINK. Vsaka cast punci (LINK) - to moras bit res karakter se s temi SJWs ubadat.
Ce bi to kdo naredil danasnji feministki bi to bil internacionalni skandal!

Horseshoe theory tudi pojasni kako so take spremembe mozne ce gres prevec v eno smer.

Odin je 6. mar 2016 ob 16:57 izjavil:

to moras bit res karakter se s temi SJWs ubadat.

Dokler bo še ostalo kaj prostega trga se bo vedno našel kdo, ki bo pripravljen to početi za ustrezno visoko plačilo.

Saj zato ga pa hočejo ukiniti.

Če jim uspe.. nam bodo pustili saj vazelin?

Zanimiv link glede Sandersovih možnosti na redditu.

The math suggests Bernie needs > 56% in every state on average to have a shot. Is this realistic? How does this factor into the two campaigns decisions?

His campaign is in a LOT of trouble, and while many may try to downplay it, those who are analyzing the numbers give him very bad odds. Much of what is being said online on various subs and in the media about Sanders isn't talking about how deep of a hole he actually is in.

Let me explain by debunking some myths being thrown around that you hear commonly on /r/ and in the media about Sander's chances, and some cold hard numbers:

MYTH: Obama lost Super Tuesday in 2008, but still won

I'm not quite sure where this myth began, but it is factually untrue. The wikipedia page covering this gives a great chronology of events, but basically IA, NH, NV, and SC all voted first in 2008, just like in 2016. Obama won all but NH and had a 63-48 lead on Clinton (keep in mind that Edwards was still in the race at this time). After Edwards was out, this became 88-46 (+42) for Obama.

By contrast, in 2016, Hillary was up +25 after SC.

However, in late January 2008, MI and FL held disputed primaries, in which Clinton won both for a 174-126 result, meaning Clinton entered Super Tuesday with a 220-214 lead on Obama.

Super Tuesday in 2008 had 23 events. Obama won 12 events, including IL and GA, while Clinton won 11 but won CA, NY, NJ and MA. Even so, Obama maintained larger margins in his victories which resulted in a 849-832 (+17) victory for Obama, flipping the race to 1,063-1,052 (+11) for Obama.

This leads me to my next point:

MYTH: In 2008, Clinton brought it close again afterwards

News pundits said this race was very close, but analysts said the writing was on the wall. Obama still had some Southern states to go (as Clinton does now, with LA and MS and NC), and his great showing on Super Tuesday energized his campaign. Coupled with big time endorsements before and after the race, such as from Ted Kennedy, Obama surged in February winning all the contests and opening a 136 delegate lead at the end of February.

Clinton simply couldn't recover from this, despite winning OH, RI, and TX in March as well as PA, IN, WV, KY, PR, and SD in April. She ended up losing by just under 100 delegates, despite going 9-7-1 in the remaining contests.

Flip the script around to this year, where Sanders is already trailing by 200 pledged (non-super-delegates) and you can see how bad of a predicament he is in.

I made this map to compare 2008 vs 2016: image

2008 is above, with Obama in purple and Clinton in green. 2016 is below, with Sanders in blue and Clinton in green again.

As you can see, Clinton has won the same Southern states so far as Obama did in 2008. In addition, she has IA just as Obama did. While she's lost VT, CO, MN - which Obama won in 2008 - and also lost OK and NH which she held in 2008 - she's gained big by winning TX and holding MA and NV from 2008.

So in actuality, she hasn't just held onto Obama's wins in the South, she's expanded them into TX while simultaneously hanging onto NV and MA from 8 years ago. She's also taken IA, which she didn't have in 2008. Her campaign is doing better than Obama's did in 2008.

Meanwhile, Bernie has flipped NH and OK from Clinton's 2008 wins, but has given up IA and TX - a net swap of 72 delegates lost for Bernie. Ouch.

MYTH: Clinton has victories in states that won't go blue and can't win swing states

I've seen this one posted a bunch in other subs, and aside from the fact that OK is a decidedly red state (+33 GOP in 2012), people seem to have forgotten that VA is a big time swing state with 13 electoral votes. In fact, the breakdown is as follows (2012 margins in parenthesis):

VA - 13 electoral votes (+3.87% DEM)
CO - 9 E.V. (+5.37% DEM)
NH - 4 E.V. (+5.58% DEM)
IA - 6 E.V. (+5.81% DEM)

That's 19 E.V.s for HRC vs. 13 for Sanders. If we expand this metric to +/-8% for the popular vote, then we add:

NV - 6 E.V. (+6.68% DEM)
MN - 10 E.V. (+7.69% DEM)
GA - 16 E.V. (+ 7.82% GOP)

Bringing the margin to 41 E.V.s in states for HRC vs. 23 E.V.s in states for Sanders for states they won that were within 8% of flipping in 2012.

While FL and OH and NC are all coming up soon, and this narrative may change, in the meanwhile on can't simply say Clinton can't win swing states. She most definitely has.

MYTH: Sanders wining 4 states on Super Tuesday was bigger than Clinton winning the 7 states she was expected to win

It's big in the sense that Sanders didn't lose everything except VT, and so on that level it looks good, but take a deeper look at the margins, as of the evening of March 3rd:

VT - Sanders +73 - Delegates Sanders +16
AL - Clinton + 59 - Delegates Clinton +35
GA - Clinton +43 - Delegates Clinton +46
AR - Clinton + 37 - Delegates Clinton +12
TN - Clinton +34 - Delegates Clinton +21
TX - Clinton +32 - Delegates Clinton +70
VA - Clinton +29 - Delegates Clinton +29
MN - Sanders +23 - Delegates Sanders +15
CO - Sanders +19 - Delegates Sanders +10
OK - Sanders +10 - Delegates Sanders +4
MA - Clinton +1 - Delegates Clinton +1

Sanders had 3 of the 4 lowest margins of the night. His total victory haul of +45 delegates for his 4 victories is COMPLETELY eliminated by just a single state - GA with +46 for Clinton. That leaves TX, AL, VA, TN, AR, and MA all adding to Clinton's delegate lead.

This isn't an issue that will just go away too. The next six races are KS, NE, ME, LA, MS, and MI. Kansas (33 delegates), Nebraska (25), Maine (25) combined... have fewer than LA (51) and MS (36) combined. Given that a recent poll had Clinton up near +50 in MS, and LA is likely to break like other Southern states if not more like MS... even if Sanders wins NE, KS, and ME by 20 points each and loses LA and MS by 30 each, he would STILL have a net loss of 9 delegates. And if AL and GA are any indication, LA and MS will be closer to +50 for Clinton than +30, meaning the gap is likely even larger due to how allocation is handled.

SEMI-MYTH: Sanders has favorable states coming that will narrow the race

While it is true that the South is the least hospitable place for Sanders, it is quite a bit to assume that Sanders will suddenly now start winning in states with favorable demographics. In his famous 538 post, Nate Silver lists states by % of white liberal voters.

This post gets used by a lot of Sanders supporters to suggest that the favorable states are coming, but are they really?

At the bottom are Southern states which all broke for Clinton, with LA and MS yet to vote. However, look at the top too - IA was 3rd and won by Clinton narrowly, and right below that is MA in 4th which Clinton won just a tad less narrowly. Meanwhile, the top 2 states - NH and VT - have all voted already.

IA and MA both polled as 50% white liberal, while CO and MN aren't even on this chart as there was no polling data, so for all we know they could be in the top. For reference, MN is 83% non-Hispanic white, which is in the top 5, and is a state known for being very liberal (they were the only state not won by Reagan).

In addition, look at states like NV (29%) which was won by Clinton by 5-6%. Then you have VA, higher on the list (31%) which was won by Clinton by 29%.

Looking at future contests, RCP is showing FL at +29 Clinton despite FL being in the top half of the chart at 34% white liberal. The most recent poll for PA had Clinton +22 despite PA being in the top half at 39%. Michigan, in the middle at 35%, has Clinton +19.

In addition, while the black-dominant states of the South may be in the past, black voters make up a large part of the Democratic base in the urban areas of the North, and most of the large Hispanic states have yet to vote.

Long story short - a lot of the Sanders supporters are posting about improved demographics, when this election itself has shown that Sanders has both won big and lost narrowly in his most favorable states, while uniformly being utterly blown out in unfavorable states. In states in the middle, he has both won and lost by smaller margins (OK and NV), but also lost very big (VA, AR).

Part 2 below

edit: this post is FIVE minutes old, and already at -1 downvotes? This sub isn't /r/politics - stop downvoting because you don't like what's being presented. If this isn't proof enough that some people are ACTIVELY suppressing bad news and trying to manipulate the narrative on their candidates on this website, I don't know what is

Part 2

Now, just how bad is the math going forward?

FACT: Clinton currently has over 1 million more popular votes than Sanders

I recall a lot of posters saying Clinton was trailing in the popular vote after NV, but my how quickly things have changed. Here is the current state of the race as of March 3rd, and now the popular vote is Clinton at 3.9 million to Sanders' 2.5 million.

SEMI-MYTH: Sander's surge in Oklahoma is proof of his ability to outperform polls

No doubt, Sanders did better in OK than his polling showed - his best poll, at +5, was beat by his 10 point margin. But that might not be the whole truth, as things are a bit more complex than they first appear.

A closer examination of exit polling from the state shows something VERY interesting: 19% of voters were conservative and voted for Sanders 54-22. In addition, 28% of voters wanted a candidate less liberal than Obama and voted 59-24 for Sanders.

Is this a sign that Sanders has cross-aisle appeal? Probably not, given that moderate and conservative voters have sided towards Clinton in other states.

The Democrats opened up their primary to Independent voters in OK, while the GOP primary was closed. Oklahoma is a DEEP red state - it went +33 Romney in 2012. With the surge in GOP turnout, many unregistered voters - who are primarily conservative in that state - were turned away at the door, or simply voted in the Democrat primary. End result? A lot of 'no preference' votes, and votes to repudiate Obama's legacy that went towards Sanders.

Suddenly, this "grass roots" support in Oklahoma... may not be such a strong grass roots base as thought.

FACT: Sanders lost the Hispanic vote in Texas

Much hoopla was made about Nevada's entrance/exit polling, exit polling from TX - the only state with a major Hispanic population (and a large sample size to pull from at 28% of voters) on Super Tuesday - showed Hispanics break 67-33 for Clinton.

This was instrumental in pushing Texas to a +32 win for Clinton, beating out the +30 aggregate on RCP before the election.

That's huge news for Clinton, given that Florida in 2 weeks is 23% Hispanic (and 16% black). They make up a significant chunk of the Democrat base there. In addition, Southern states had very small Hispanic populations while many states with big Hispanic populations have yet to vote.

If Clinton carries those Hispanic voters anywhere close to what she did in TX, her big victories in the South aren't going to be the only big victories in her campaign.

FACT: Sanders needs BIG HUGE wins just to try to stay competitive - and it may be too late already

Here's the meat & potatoes of this post.

Sanders is estimated at a 197 delegate deficit currently in the pledged delegate race. All Democrat races have proportional allocation, but there's a catch: allocation isn't entirely proportional to population. It's also based on precinct, with some states weighing that more heavily than othrs.

For instance, if you have 4 delegates in a precinct, how do you split them? If one person wins 55-45, both might get 2 delegates. To make it 3-1, you may have to win 62.5% of the vote to get that third delegate.

This is why Sanders winning by 10 in OK and 20 in CO and MN was huge, but his net delegate win (+29 total) was tiny compared to Clinton's gigantic wins in states like AL (+35), VA (+29), TN (+21), etc.

Even if we simplify this down to a purely straight proportional allocation based on popular vote (which helps winners of small margins), the math isn't pretty. For instance, a hypothetical +10 win for Sanders in CA only nets him +47 delegates - just a quarter of his gap. A +20 win in CA would only get him half the way - and the demographics in CA (a white-minority state) do not suggest he will get close to that.

So what does that all mean? To catch up, again assuming a simplified proportional allocation system based solely off of popular votes, Sanders has to either run the table in states by a significant margin to catch up, around +6-7 in every single race to follow, or he has to win very big consistently while closing the gap in states he is currently trailing in.

Keep this in mind too - every state he underperforms kills his chances of catching up. Let's say, for instance, he wins KS, ME, and NE by 20 but loses LA and MS by 30 and 40, respectively. Let's say he ties MI. He goes from requiring +6.4 in every subsequent state to tie in delegates to requiring +7.2. If he ties FL, OH, IL, MO, and NC, he now needs +9.6 in every subsequent election.

Just how bleak is this?

FACT: Sanders can win every non-Southern state going forward by 20 points, while tying a handful of big states (like FL, IL, OH, CA, NJ) - and he'd still lose.

Look at this chart which has all upcoming contests.

Under scenario 1, I give Sanders a margin of victory on the left with the delegate allocation (based on popular vote) for the candidates. I assigned margins similar to his victories in similar nearby states (and those demographically similar) while giving him ties in states he currently trails in (like MI, FL, OH,). Even with big 20+ wins in most states, he gains a net of 37 delegates... nowhere near enough to close the 200 delegate gap Clinton has amassed.

On the right in scenario 2, I give Sanders a 20% or higher win in every single state except for 30 point losses in LA and MS. I gave him ties in MI, FL, IL, MO, NC, OH, NY, PA, CA, and NJ - states he's all currently polling at trailing in 10-20% margins.

End result? +200 delegates - enough to pass Clinton's current lead. But this is precarious - losing ANY of those states at zero by 10% brings it into a tie at best. Lose ANY two of those states by 8%, and he's lost.

Or to put it in some other terms, here is Scenario 3

He can lose LA and MS by 30 points each, and assuming a win in every single other state (including places like DC and Puerto Rico where he is not demographically favored) by 20%, while Clinton's campaign merely needs to TIE in every state with 100 or more delegates (CA, NY, FL, PA, IL, OH, MI, NJ, NC, WA) and he will still fall just short without counting super delegates.

So sure, people can put out charts showing how only 25% of the primary is over, and how the score is actually more like 30-20 in a football game. The problem is, this football game gives you 7 points for a TD... but also gives your opponent 6 points for a TD, and your opponent has the ball and gets to keep it when they score, while you don't.

He might not be officially out of it yet, and he apparently has the money to continue, but the actual underlying numbers are saying it's just about all but done.

V tem, da se ne sklada z njihovo agendo.

Naredili bomo analizo vseh ne rdecih drzav in videli, ali Sanders med demokratskimi volilci uziva vecjo podporo. Ce ne, priznamo poraz brez problema.

Pa se ena zelo pomembna zadeva: ne uposteva Bernija kot podpredsednika in zunanjega ministra... In da so zmage tudi "pirove"

Bernovci za koga boste pol ko jitlary dobi nominacijo?
Trumpa ki mu establisment ni naklonjena ali warmorgon hitlary?

Maine: Sanders 65%, Clinton 35%

Uspesen vikend za Sandersa, zmagal v treh "modrih" drzavah, Hillary v eni "rdeci".

Bernie pravi da belci ne vedo kako je bit reven (link). Zgleda da res potrebuje crnske glasove, da je take bederije zacel ven metat. Skoraj bi lahko rekel da je to illiberalna in regresivna izjava..

FojboFob in a nutshell