CFCman:
Donald Trump has won the state of Arizona. With 49% if the precincts reporting;
Trump has garnered, so far, 46.5% of the vote
Senator Cruz 21.1%
Governor Kasich 10%

Secretary Clinton has also won the Arizona Democratic primary with 60.5% of the vote, to Sen Sanders' 37%.

ValerianSteel:
There's a guy on twitter,he's always on Hillary's twitter page.He has it bad for,every post by Hillary's tweet handle gets a very nasty comment from him.His handle is @NeilTurner_

Here's a photoshopped picture he keeps posting recently that's got me laughing hard.

CFCman:

CFCman:
Today, voters in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii vote in the Dem caucuses. Alaska is a closed contest, Hawaii is semi-closed, and Washington is an open caucus.

Missy89:


Sanders should do well in WA yes?

This Is Why Hillary Clinton's Running Mate Should Be A Woman

Of the many aspects of Hillary Clinton's prospective Democratic presidential nomination that are often speculated about — Will her record on Benghazi cost her? What will a debate with current Republican frontrunner Donald Trump be like? — there is one that may prove especially controversial: Will Hillary Clinton pick a female running mate? Certainly, many Democrats would likely be anxious about their party's White House prospects with an all-female ticket. Clinton is trailing among white male voters. If she captures the nomination and wants to win white men in the general election, conventional wisdom goes, she'll need to balance the ticket. And she can't choose another woman because, as Rachel Maddow so memorably suggested, she'll probably need to pick "some Grizzly Adams mountain man" instead, "to comfort the people who would be so freaked out by the prospect of a woman president."

But if Americans are ready for one woman, couldn't they easily be ready for two? I certainly think that an all-female Democratic ticket is the right move — and I am not the only one.

Aimee Allison, Sr. Vice President of PowerPAC+ and author of She the People: The New Politics of Women of Color, which is to be published in September, says Clinton should select a woman — and specifically, a woman of color as her running mate. Allison tells Bustle, "It's time to desegregate the office of Vice President." According to Allison, given the rapidly changing demographics in our country, "It makes perfect sense to have a person of color," adding that women of color "have been behind progressive and Democratic victories without acknowledgment — and without the full embracing of women of color leadership and our issues. It is time for that to change."

So what about all those guys (and, let's face it, they're usually guys) who are convinced Clinton would lose with a two-woman ticket? "I actually think [choosing a woman] is not a risk at all, it's a necessity," says Allison.

"It's interesting that political pundits, a huge number of whom are white guys, are busy operating on false assumptions about our electorate, and are not giving African-American women their due." Allison says. "There is no way that Hillary Clinton, right now, would have the delegate lead that she has, and be as likely to win the nomination, without African-American women's votes. Black women are the reason that Hillary Clinton has a two million vote lead ... [to run a woman of color] is not a crazy idea, it's just good politics."

Allison's confidence inspires me. But I can't help worrying about the havoc a two-woman ticket could wreak on our media. Won't it break a lot of brains for two women to be out there seeking the highest offices in the land? That's two outfits to analyze! Two hairstyles to scrutinize! Two women for pundits like Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough and Bob Woodward to insultingly critique! How would they keep track?

Democratic political operative Abigail Collazo agrees with Allison. "Not only will [Clinton] consider a female vice presidential candidate; I think she must," Collazo tells Bustle. She adds:

We've had two men on the ticket for centuries ... it's time. The country is absolutely ready for two women on the ticket. Women are a huge voting bloc, we are coming out in droves to support both Hillary Clinton and Democratic nominees in general and the truth is that people like to see themselves represented in government.

But isn't there a difference between what we believe America should be ready for and what voters are actually willing to support? Isn't there a reason Sen. Dianne Feinstein told The New York Times that "it's certainly possible to have two women ... I am not sure it's wise" back in 2014?

Maybe that held in 2014, but the already rule breaking 2016 election definitely has some wiggle room for changing things up. "While I think conventional wisdom is that VPs should be used politically to balance the ticket, to make up for weaknesses of the presidential candidate, this is not a conventional year," James Campbell, professor of political science at the State University of New York at Buffalo, tells Bustle.

"If Clinton's opponent is Donald Trump, a candidate who does not do so well with women, [choosing] a younger woman as [her] running mate might make up for Clinton's weakness with younger voters and at the same time highlight Trump's weakness," Campbell says. "It would also undercut perceptions of Clinton as an all-too-safe, uninspiring candidate."

As a millennial woman who's been feeling the Bern, big-time, I must admit that Campbell's words struck a chord. If anything could get me fired up to vote for Clinton in the general election (and no, fear of Trump is not the same as excitement about Clinton) her choosing a progressive woman of color as her running mate — Kshama Sawant, anyone? A girl can dream! — just might do the trick.

Then again, maybe a two-woman ticket only seems viable to my socialist-leaning feminist friends and me.

According to Barry C. Burden, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "The gender gap in voting is likely to be larger than normal [this year], especially if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. This probably helps the Democrats' chances." Burden notes, "It's not clear that 'doubling down' by choosing a female running mate is especially advantageous. It would draw more attention to her gender ... and could be harmful ... some independents and Republicans might see an all-female ticket as a signal that she is devoting too much attention to issues that affect women."

New York State assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal doubts Clinton will choose a female running mate, "Sadly there is still far too much of an institutionalized, systemic aversion to the ascendancy of women for her to run on an all-female ticket," Rosenthal tells Bustle. "There are numerous women who would make exceptional vice presidential candidates, but America's yearning for the 'strong, stabilizing influence of men' will likely dictate her selection."

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012.

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

38 states had no campaign events, and miniscule or no spending for TV ads.

The predictability of the winner of the state you live in determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

CFCman:
@Missy89, texanomaly: Should the US adopt a national popular vote system for future presidential elections? Or should the Electoral College be abolished altogether?

Already 10 states and D.C. (165 Electoral College votes) have enacted statutes that award all their Electors to the winner of the nationwide vote. The EC could be Trump's achilles heel in November because he could win the popular vote -- like Al Gore in 2000 -- but still lose the EC vote to Hillary (or Bernie?).

CFCman:
73% of American women have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump

39% of Republican women also view Trump unfavorably.

How the hell does he think he has a chance in November?

tpiah01:



What percentages of men agree with him?

Missy89:


The electoral vote is not perfect but i prefer it. It Prevents mob rule and people like trump from winning an election

I dont even think it will be ratified in some states if there is a plan to abolish it.

CFCman:

Around 48%

happney65:
Sanders seems to win more in Rural States..Am not surprised though,Poor People would always want Goodies,not wanting to work on themselves and expecting the Government to foot their bills which is the message Sanders is bringing to them..

croat:


Man, you are embarrasing yourself with such a stupid post that shows how ignorant/uninformed you are about USA...