JayJayH

I do think that when you have a field that consists of more than 3 candidates, there should be an elimination round to narrow the field to two.

Agreed. Eliminates the "need" for superdelegates. Minimizes the odds of another Trump.

Ironically, it was the GOP's insistence on "trusting the voters" that lead them to nominating the least popular candidate in history.

The accuracy of polling is all related to how well a pollster is able to predict voter turnout and the methodology used to determine lean among various demographic groups. That's why averages usually win.

In essence - Trump's only hope of relocating to 1600 Pennsylvania is that the USC - LA Times methodology, which is new (and quite interesting) isn't statistical noise at all, but the only one accurately portraying this election cycle. My guess is, Trump lost this election the day he decided to go on the debate stage an reinforce every single stereotype against him.

Hillary wins assuming this election isn't a complete historical outlier.

Trump wins assuming:

1. There are a lot of closet Trump voters out there, and they will vote in big numbers. (I personally know more than a handful, but that's a scientifically accurate prediction of nothing).

2. These closet Trump voters make up for Hillary's superior ground game (and then some).

3. Traditional methods of polling don't apply to this election due to Trump's unusual candidacy.

4. Democrats vote in much lower numbers than in 2008 and 2012.

5. All of the above apply to at least a majority of the following states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Applying Occam's Razor, I'd say Trump has better odds of becoming a sporadic post-election contributor on Hannity.

On the other hand the use of Super delegates by the Republicans might have spared 'Merca from the jack-o-lantern filled with raw sewage currently heading up their ticket. Food for thought.

Touche!

Still mind boggling how Trump came out on top out of a field of 17 candidates.

On thing the GOP could learn from the French: When no candidate wins a majority the first time around, let first and second place run one-on-one.

I don't think anyone on Americans far left is advocating for the return of communism, certainly not in any meaningful numbers. Bernie according to Fox is far left, I can't recall him ever saying that he wants a Soviet style government here in America. America's right, now that's a completely different story. Lots of hate, calls for closing of borders, exclusion of members of an entire religion and has plenty of people going round saying what a lovely place America was before multi culturalism etc. The far right seems to hate anyone who is not a white, Anglo Saxon, christian.

The U.S. has never been a "multicultural" country in the European context of the term. But the melting pot vs. salad bowl debate is a different one.

As far as the far right hating on everyone - Perhaps some of this is fueled by the far left, which again is fueled by the far right.. And again by the far left.. And so on?

The far left nowadays seems to be more about hating some arbitrary ambiguous white boogeyman.

I'm all for discussing left-leaning economic policies, climate change, social policy etc. I just can't understand why we have to put out blanket statements and alienate 70% of the country in the process. I thought that's what the far right did. Seems to be a terrible way to win back the Democratic base.

OP, I never knew this about Bahamanians of Haitian origin, and I am sorry for your situation.

In general, your case sounds like a long shot, a very long shot as far as asylum goes. Economic difficulties or everyday unpleasantness will not get you asylum. Generally, a case for asylum is if you have a genuine fear of death, torture, wrongful imprisonment etc. on the basis of your ethnicity, religion, political views etc. and your government either cannot protect you, or is participating in said persecution. Example would be if a civil war or genocide broke out in the Bahamas.

As Boiler mentioned - Why can't you go to Haiti? This sounds harsh, but as far as the USCIS is concerned, you'd be safe there - Which would render the need for asylum out of the question.

I don't know your situation, and don't want to discourage you from exploring the option, but do so with solid legal counsel. Also, H1B might be a better route for you.

I don't know what you mean. The far left wants to give everyone access to health care, while the far right wants to bring back fascism. Not exactly mirror images of each other.

Lol, the far left is just about as fascist as the far right.

I don't mind single payer healthcare. That's a great idea. Cost efficient too.

I mind thought police, language police, racial segregation and censorship. I'm sort of a free speech fundamentalist. So the far left scares me far more than the far right these days.

There goes the republic....

At least, statistically, that should leave some balance.

More from this fiasco. I think the second to last paragraph I posted says a lot.

CARACAS, VenezuelaVenezuelas government, steadily more authoritarian in recent years, cast off more vestiges of democracy Thursday night, when electoral authorities extinguished the oppositions efforts to recall President Nicolás Maduro by referendum.

The action came days after the government postponed December elections for governors that it would have badly lost and stripped the legislature of one of the last powers it had left: its constitutional right to pass a federal budget.

Taken together, the moves signal the end of opposition hopes that Mr. Maduro could be removed from power through referendum, as provided for under the constitution, or have his executive power checked. And they fuel growing doubt about whether Mr. Maduros ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela will hold presidential elections scheduled for 2018.

Public figures and intellectuals decried the latest moves in a country with one of Latin Americas longest and strongest democratic traditions.

Democracy doesnt exist without the separation of powers, without elections and without votes, Alberto Barrera, a noted author here, said in an online column this week. That has another name.

The government followed the referendums suspension by issuing travel bans for 11 opposition leaders, including former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles and Jesús Torrealba, the general secretary of the opposition alliance.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelas-moves-signal-gutting-of-democracy-1477068719

It seems like every time you get into the business of 'banning things' or encroaching on people because you 'know what's best for them', nothing good has ever ensued.

Ever.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole Syria thing in general. I honestly don't see Assad stepping down/vaporizing anytime soon...and let's say, if he did fall/disappear/vanish/etc.....wouldn't it just be like Iraq, Part II? If the US then pulled out, there would be a power vacuum (minus Assad) and then another can of worms would open up?

I just don't get what the goal is because it's pretty darned obvious that Assad/Russia are NEVER going to stop supporting each other. And Russia is willing to throw it's economy into the toilet/sacrifice their own people in order to do what Mr. P wants. Yes, it's that bad here.

So, in that case, maybe Hillary's "no fly zone" sounds sort of like some kind of temporary fix or improvement to the situation, but it won't actually solve anything in the long run. Am I correct in my thought here?

No fly zone in Syria would be practically impossible in practice at this point. We're not going to impose a "no-fly order" on the Russian Air Force. If Bush went too far in his unilateralism, Obama has been too naive in his multilateralism. Syria today is a cluster#### of epic proportions, and likely, the only solutions will come from an awkward handshake between Assad and some rebel leader. Or the obliteration of Syrian rebel forces altogether.

But first we have to be grant the entirety of ISIS their wish and send them to their maker.

maybe we americans need to stop thinking we can always hop in and 'fix or improve' situations. history shows, we actually accomplish the opposite.

That's sort of a half-truth. if we go in, the anti-war crowd will object/ If we don't go in, our sins of omission will linger for eternity.

If we're talking about Iraq and Libya, we haven't really "improved" much, if anything at all. W's insane idea of eliminating Iraq's version of Assad was.. I have no words..

That being said, there is no reason to think Libya wouldn't have turned into what is now Syria. Qaddafi was doing the exact same 'thing' Assad was doing.

We stopped a bloodbath in Bosnia, a bloodbath in Kosovo, and lord knows how many Rwandans could have been alive today if we had actually rolled up our sleeves in '94.

Apparently, the board that decides the Nobel Prizes is upset at Dylan for failure to kiss their elitist behinds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3862748/Nobel-academy-member-says-Bob-Dylan-s-silence-musician-win-literature-prize-impolite-arrogant.html

Haha.

They know that they are very important.

And of course totally on message came this ad in a local paper today:

Haha.

I wish more emphasis was put on local elections and less on federal-level partisanship.

One of my friends the other day was asking me who to vote for down ballot, saying she was just crossing out whomever's "name sounded cooler."

i'm an hour from DC, ten minutes from wva. i haven't seen a single hilary sign but ive seen countless trump signs, multiple diy trump billboards, pickups with lock her up, etc painted on. guy got in the paper for his highway billboard & display of life sized trump, melania, hillary (locked up) right down the road from me. i think michelle and obama too. i know there are plenty of people here that won't be voting trump, but they're certainly quiet this go round.

I have a couple of friends in Southern California who are voting for Trump but will never admit to it for their own safety. I've seen some Trump signs here in bright blue Hawaii, but never in coastal California.

imo this is why trump supporters are so vocal around here. virginia goes blue because of the metro area, red pockets like where i'm at are a stark contrast to progress. they're angry because they feel unheard and unrepresented. seriously angry, considering the slime ball they're willing to vote for has vested his career in screwing over workers just like them.

west virginia is the flip side, liberal pockets - overall misguided angry disenfranchised working poor..

I read an excellent article in The New Yorker about West Virginians' love for Trump. I generally cannot stand "elitist mainstream media" outlets discussing Trump supporters because it usually ends up in 'civilized city folk' criticizing the 'misguided peasants' for not knowing what's best for them. But this article was spot on: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/in-the-heart-of-trump-country

I've long wondered why some of the staunchest Republicans & now Trump supporters are poor people whose America has never really been great to begin with. I have friends in some southern red states who are by no means well off, yet they will go down in flames supporting the Republican party which does next to nothing for the middle and lower classes of this country.

"Great" is a relative term.

One of the greatest misconceptions about the "poor, white working class GOP voter" is that they're voting against their own best interest. In certain contexts I'll concede that it's true. One of my main problems with the GOP aside from the religious conservatism is the anti-union rhetoric. Detroit isn't bankrupt because of unions. Detroit is bankrupt because supply of American-built cars outweighed demand for them. In that context, I think a lot of Rust Belt voters have shot themselves in the foot by jumping on the anti-union bandwagon. A lot of these people are nostalgic for different economic times, sure, but "great" is more of a feeling of nostalgic pride.

That being said, poor working class whites have traditionally been the backbone of the Democratic party. That didn't change in 1964 as some people will claim. West Virginia voted for Bill Clinton twice and even voted for Mike Dukakis in 1988. Bernie Sanders won more primary votes in West Virginia than all non-Trump GOP candidates combined, and he wasn't far behind Trump in total votes either. A lot of these voters no longer see a significant economic difference between the Democratic and Republican establishment, so they are cultural and social issue voters.

If you (not you personally) want to convince poor working class white voters to vote Democrat again, you'll also have to stop telling them that their skin color makes them more privileged than others, and that they're uneducated peasants who cling to their guns and religion. Plain and simple. And that's what most of the mainstream media has been doing for decades.

i live in trump country it seems. fear is what that sort of darkness brings. and trump is playing right into that.

If you live in deep red county USA, the far right probably poses a more immediate concern.

If you live in deep blue county coastal USA, the lunacy on the far left is far more apparent.

Which is why talking politics often becomes apples and oranges.

Eye roll....I just can't anymore. He's a Jew, doesn't that at least count?!?!?!

Apparently not good enough for the Guardian.

1. it's not a matter of becoming partisan when 'the other side' is not at all in line with your existence. 2. voting for a candidate who says he'll defund planned parenthood (gl with that) is a vote against the best interest of all american women. good conservatives (as in fiscal not social) stayed on their knees for cray cray evangelicals way too long and now they're expected to tow the extremist prolife* line (*disclaimer, prolife only is preborn). i know christian women who are voting for trump because they actually believe he'll defund planned parenthood and apparently dictating available medical services to other women is something they feel god is personally, very.very. worried about.

LOL.

1. 'The other side' is a very broad statement though. When liberals talk about conservatives nowadays, it tends to be a blanket generalization of Bible thumping Jerry Fallwells, and there is a fear of agreeing with anyone on the other side about anything. That's true for conservatives as well. I've spoken to several conservatives who believe 'the other side' mainly consists of hipsters with blue armpit hair whose main goal in life is to get an arbitrary 1% to pay for free stuff and to find new semantics to be offended by.

As much as I despise the fundamentalist evangelical right and SJWs, I still truly believe that they form a loud but small minority on either side. Most people are rational once you sit them down and talk with them.

2. I agree personally. But that depends entirely on your view of abortion. I've mentioned before that if you're convinced that abortion is akin to murdering infants, then opposing Planned Parenthood is a good cause. I mean, it doesn't matter how charitable an organization is - If you're killing innocent, defenseless children as part of your charity, I'd vehemently oppose it regardless of how many people told me I "hate charity." Rather than telling people they're "against women", a better approach would probably be a humble approach towards a legitimate ethical dilemma. The "you hate women" argument is kind of like the "you hate freedom" argument used by the neocons in 2003 for anyone who opposed invading Iraq.

70% of Americans oppose partial birth abortion. So there is some consensus. Most Democrats just don't trust Republicans not to overreach.

88% of Americans support either stricter gun laws, or keeping them as they are today. So there is some consensus. Most Republicans just don't trust Democrats not to overreach.

72% of Americans think immigration is a good thing for the country. So there is consensus. Most people just don't trust the other side to do it right because the megaphones have been given to the "deport them all!" crowd and the "open borders!" crowd. So I keep meeting liberals who believe conservatives hate immigrants. And I keep meeting conservatives who believe liberals want to abolish the USCIS and CBP.

I'll note that Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate for president ever to stand on stage during a Republican primary debate and say "Planned Parenthood does wonderful things for women." As much as I grieved for the GOP when Trump won, his nomination was a nail in the coffin for the evangelical right's stranglehold on the GOP.

According to Bill O'Rielly, and Fox News.

This poll is definitely legit!

I love it when people call actual scientific polls from reputable polling institutions biased. Then quote an online Drudge poll of 25,000 Drudge readers as somehow a legit alternative.

It's kind of like asking 25,000 PETA members online if they eat meat, and then conclude that "63% of Americans are now vegan."

This. I'm from an old school Conservative family, but I don't support the Republicans. That said, at least I can see the logic in the "limited government" conservatives, but the crazy religious evangelical people scare me, and I'm from the Bible Belt/Deep South. It seems things have become a lot more polarized and extreme and it's really unsettling.

I don't mind if people hold traditional values, but forcing it everywhere into the government is insane. That's what's happening in Putin's Russia, he props up the church to make his image more righteous and says people are evil and immoral if they support "the decadent West"....it's really disturbing that the Republicans of today almost mirror this.

Agreed. I think one of the scariest things about polarization is that it forces people into taking positions they otherwise wouldn't take. It's rare nowadays to see a Republican and a Democrat agree on anything at all, even positions where what separates people us are semantics. Deal making and compromise has turned into political baggage - The type of nastiness that'll get you voted out of office.

So instead, law making turns into a race against time where the goal is to ram as much unwanted legislation down people's throats as possible, while there is still time. That's where people lose trust. Over 75% of Americans believe partial birth abortions should be banned. So there is consensus. Over 75% Americans believe there should be some type of background check done before people can purchase a firearm. So there is consensus. There just isn't trust.

People are so scared of giving credence or credit to the other side, that they become even more partisan. As the electorate becomes more partisan, so do the politicians they vote for, and it hurts everyone's cause.

Why are you all cheering?

Giving Bob Dylan a nobel prize is racist, and he should be measured up against his skin color and gender first and foremost. His character or the content of his writing matters very little.

From the always lovely Guardian:

"But of course it will be criticised, and it should be. Giving the award to any white male writer, no matter what form he writes in, is in no way innovative or inspired. It is simply a return to the status quo – albeit in a different genre."

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/14/bob-dylans-nobel-prize-isnt-radical-hes-just-another-white-male-writer

Jay, it is xenophobia. Period. It's at a rampage in Europe (in some ways it never left since WWII only tampered down and laying in wait for the right opportunity), and its always been a threat in America.

It has absolutely nothing to do with real, legitimate concerns over sustainability, sure.

Dip me in racism and roll me in xenophobia, but I do find concerns in taking in hundreds of thousands of mostly unvetted, largely military aged single males from the contemporary Middle East.

I'm happy to take in 10,000 vetted Syrian refugees. I think that's humane. I'm not on board with the notion that demanding restrictions and sustainable regulation is "xenophobia."

From the xenophobic conservative media outlet known as PBS:

"After declaring that its welfare system was collapsing under the strain of up to 200,000 refugees, Sweden today became the latest European country to impose border controls. The nation has accepted more refugees per capita than any other country on the continent. But its appeals to other European nations to share the burden have been largely ignored."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/feeling-burden-of-migrant-crisis-sweden-imposes-border-controls/

Swedish "no-go zones" have largely been mocked by American media. But is a well-known phenomenon in left-leaning Scandinavian state media:

(I actually rely on left-leaning Scandinavian state-owned media to adjust for denial in U.S. media)

"Swedish police warns that Stockholm's main train station has become unsafe after being ‘taken over’ by dozens of Moroccan street children. The all-male migrant teen gangs are spreading terror in the centre of the Swedish capital, stealing, groping girls and assaulting security guards, according to Stockholm police."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3415477/Swedish-police-warn-Stockholm-s-main-police-station-overrun-migrant-teen-gangs-stealing-groping-girls.html

From the right-wing megaphone known as Politico:

"Over nine years, I witnessed the neighborhood become increasingly intolerant. Alcohol became unavailable in most shops and supermarkets; I heard stories of fanatics at the Comte des Flandres metro station who pressured women to wear the veil; Islamic bookshops proliferated, and it became impossible to buy a decent newspaper. With an unemployment rate of 30 percent, the streets were eerily empty until late in the morning. Nowhere was there a bar or café where white, black and brown people would mingle. Instead, I witnessed petty crime, aggression, and frustrated youths who spat at our girlfriends and called them “filthy whores.” If you made a remark, you were inevitably scolded and called a racist. There used to be Jewish shops on Chaussée de Gand, but these were terrorized by gangs of young kids and most closed their doors around 2008. Openly gay people were routinely intimidated, and also packed up their bags.

I finally left Molenbeek in 2014. It was not out of fear. The tipping point, I remember, was an encounter with a Salafist, who tried to convert me on my street. It boiled down to this: I could no longer stand to live in this despondent, destitute, fatalistic neighborhood."

http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/

There is no reason for Trumpesque alarmism in the U.S.

Nor is there any good reason for willful denial either.

I would weigh in, but I would just get a lecture on how I never married a Filipino wonan so I coukd not possibly understand how great a president Dirty Harry is.

Welcome to the wonderfully inclusionary world of identity politics.

Where the validity of your opinion is first sized up by your skin color, gender, religion, heritage, political affiliation or in this case, your wife's nationality.

The conservatives you've met and the conservatives I've met very much differ then. I didn't say all conservatives, I said a certain variety. How republicans wanted to frame that particular message to the collective at large was from a 'social justice' angle in an effort to oppose legislation involving those rights. Those SJWs you mention work both ways you know. I'm not talking about mere surgery, but again the point is that a woman should not have comparable access, freedom, and rights at all.

Men who think a woman's place is in the kitchen don't get a free pass excuse of merely 'misguided' souls to me. And men who are just like that, aren't exactly whom I'm referring to. If you haven't met or known or understood the types I'm referring to, fine. But they are there, and more numerous than you realize. You are constantly talking about how extremes an extremists have leeched into the liberal brand... but extremists have been an old pro at this in the evangelical brand from even beyond I can remember, and now politics. It's so permeated in the way it's purposefully constructed so that one cannot identify extreme from normal - especially in many of the conservative religious circles I'm familiar with.

I agree - The conservative brand was hijacked over a decade ago to replace "limited government" with "religion first." It sends a chill down my spine when I hear people say "I'm a Christian first, then an American." These are generally the same people who throw a fit when someone says "I'm a Muslim first, then an American." I tend to throw a fit when I hear either.

But I gave up on the religious right a long time ago. The GOP was hijacked and their brand driven into a big-government evangelical ditch.

My mission as a liberal is to prevent my own side from progressing into a regressive ditch. That's how we end up with Donald Trumps.

The political spectrum isn't a straight line from left to right. It's a horseshoe where the extremes of both sides end up in murky waters.

There isn't much difference between ideological ditches.

Whether you see the far right or the far left as a bigger threat probably depends on where you live. If you're in Arkansas, I'd assume the far right is more immediate. If you've spent most of your American life in California, the far left is far scarier.

Yes, the AOS system is completely broken.

Overstayers who actually leave are treated harshly but you can overstay for decades without leaving, working illegally the whole time and if you can find a USC then you get completely forgiven.

It's a personal thing for me, my overstay was out of my control for reasons I can't go into but I accept blame for staying as long as I did.

I accept the penalty for doing so.

But even now, years after my ban has ended I am still being punished as I am still unable to visit the US.

I left the US voluntarily because I hated being out of status and because I knew I didn't belong there.

But if I'd carried on living there, ignoring the laws, if I'd taken a job and lived under the radar I would have been forgiven for breaking the rules without penalty.

Instead I'm punished for doing the right thing by leaving.

If AOS and forgiveness for immediate relatives was abolished then an incentive to overstay would disappear and I think more people would have the chance to travel to the US if the pathways to abuse of the system were closed.

I'm sorry for your situation - And I do agree.

I can understand that a student who has been in the U.S. for four years, or someone on an H-1b for the past five years might meet someone or AOS through their family eventually. But if you're a genuine tourist, I have a difficult time seeing much sense in an AOS system that essentially forgives you for willingly and knowingly abusing it. Waivers for certain unforeseen circumstances - Absolutely. Waivers for "I'm going to move to America on a tourist visa and live there illegally until I can get circumvent the laws" - Really?

I would be a whole lot easier for relatives to visit the U.S. if the AOS loophole was tightened.

“Black people will sometimes speak without thinking of the bigger implications of their actions,” Brookshire told Fox News. Racist.

“Women will sometimes speak without thinking of the bigger implications of their actions,” Brookshire told Fox News. Sexist.

“Asian people will sometimes speak without thinking of the bigger implications of their actions,” Brookshire told Fox News. Racist.

“Latinos people will sometimes speak without thinking of the bigger implications of their actions,” Brookshire told Fox News. Racist.

“White people will sometimes speak without thinking of the bigger implications of their actions,” Brookshire told The Washington Post. Inclusionary progressive open-mindedness.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't understand why we don't have a visa exit system similar to Schengen. It should be elementary.

Few people discuss how it would actually benefit millions of prospective visitors each year. The main obstacle to acquiring a tourist visa today is overcoming INA 214(b). If we implemented an exit tracking system and just said "gloves off and no AOS" when people do willingly overstay, I'd presume the burden of proof to overcome 214(b) would be far lower for the tens of millions of legitimate tourists worldwide.

But what do I know?

Err..by quoting me you expect me to respond???

I don't, but you did.

I'm just sharing ideas as to how get more people to vote for Hillary that don't involve verbal social media battles over which family empire has the least nasty sexual history.

I shared what it would take for me to return to the Democratic party. Swing county voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia might share similar concerns. Or maybe they want to be told how racist and deplorable they are. Who knows?