Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Bernie is winning the nomination race and here's whyFollow

#152 Mar 30 2016 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
And the fact that Dem primary participation is down significantly (like 80% of normal), while GOP primary participation is up massively (like 170% of normal) suggests there's at least some truth to this

Probably not much. Primary participation is based mainly around how competitive the election is and how much you care who wins (i.e. differences between candidates). The Democratic side isn't very competitive ("Clinton is going to win so why go out?") and not a lot of difference ("Eh, they're both good I guess").


Except in this case, I think it's "there's a lot of difference, but Clinton is going to win anyway". I'll also repeat my assertion that since most on the Left assume that Clinton will win, if they aren't terribly confident in Clinton, their best chance of helping the Dems win is to vote in the GOP primary for the candidate they think she has the best shot against. Which, in case you aren't keeping track, is Trump (at least if the polls are to be believed). But since in order to do this, they'd have to register as Republican (in many states at least), they might have committed to that course before the Sanders surge occurred. Allowing him to do far better in the primary than he should have.

Quote:
The GOP side is the opposite with a real chance at a contested election and active fighting between the camps of the campaigns ("We won't vote if Trump wins!" "We'll riot if the establishment steals this!", etc)


There have been large fields on the GOP side before (four years ago, in fact). We didn't see a 70% increase in primary voters then. That increase is entirely about Trump (and nicely matches up with his numbers). While I'm sure a large portion of that are disaffected people who might otherwise not get involved in any primary at all, at least some of that has got to be left leaning people who might otherwise vote in the Dem primary, but don't see a contest there, and see a weak candidate they don't have the ability to replace, and realize that their best odds are to sabotage the GOP chances by voting Trump. Um... But whichever it is (and to whatever degree), it's not just the field itself, but Trump that is causing that.

Trust me. As a Republican, I'd love for this to be a massive swelling of support for a the GOP with Trump as its leader. I mean, not from an ideological point of view, but if we're talking purely partisan here, that would be wonderful. But yeah, I suspect it's less a mass of support for Trump, and more a mass of folks who see a Trump nomination by the GOP as the best chance of a Democrat sitting in the white house next year. And again, at least by the polls through most of this race, they would be right to do so.

Quote:
That said, primary participation isn't really indicative of general election interest.


I didn't say it did. I said it indicates that Clinton is so weak that some number of voters who want the Dems to win will believe their odds are better voting for Trump in the GOP primary than voting for anyone in the Dem primary. If I were a left leaning voter, but not a member of the Democratic party, and could thus vote in either primary, you'd bet I'd be voting for Trump in the GOP primary in my state if I could. Because, as you and I both appear to agree, there is no contest on the Democrat side. So why vote when there's no doubt about who will win? But if I get to vote anyway, why not vote where I can actually make a difference?

Quote:
I understand the value in pretending otherwise for the GOP though so it's become a popular rallying cry. As for Trump's numbers being up because of Democratic "strategic" votes, nothing has given evidence to this. In fact, Trump has often done better in exit polls among "very conservatives" than Cruz.


Great. How about how he's doing among moderates or liberals? You also get that if I'm voting strategically, I can say I'm anything I want in an exit poll. If I want to pin Trump as the most evil bigoted conservative in the race, why wouldn't I claim that's what I am and why I'm voting for him in a primary? It's like you don't get the concept of sabotage here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#153 Mar 30 2016 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except in this case, I think it's "there's a lot of difference, but Clinton is going to win anyway". I'll also repeat my assertion that since most on the Left assume that Clinton will win, if they aren't terribly confident in Clinton, their best chance of helping the Dems win is to vote in the GOP primary for the candidate they think she has the best shot against.

This basically never happens. People barely bother to vote in primaries to begin with, much less make some sweeping effort to strategically vote for some other guy.

You're welcome, of course, to Smiley: tinfoilhat whatever you want (and I get that it makes you feel better to pretend that Trump isn't winning with real conservatives) but there really isn't any evidence for it. In fact, in Ohio, it seems as though Kasich's larger than expected victory was fueled in part by cross-over Democratic votes trying to stop Trump from winning the state.

Edited, Mar 31st 2016 9:09am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#154 Mar 30 2016 at 8:18 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

If Lincoln Chaffee had anywhere near the influence on the party (or possibly as much dirt on folks) as Bill Clinton does, you might have a point. She is owed it because she and her husband want it, and the party for any of a number of reasons we could speculate about, is willing to give it to them. It has nothing at all to do with her personal strengths as a politician.
The hypocrisy is that the biggest attack on Sen. Rubio was that he was another Sen. Obama in the making, an inexperienced senator not willing to "wait" his turn. You can't go back now and claim that he was the best qualified candidate. He wasn't, that's why the party "owes" her.

Gbaji wrote:
Sigh. Only if you assume they are rallying around her because she's strong, and not because she and her husband have sufficient power and influence over the right people in the party to make it happen. You're incredibly naive if you think her support in the party is based on merit. Well, merit earned by means other than favor swapping, complete with the possibility of someone knowing where other people's skeletons are. Bill Clinton used his time as Governor of Arkansas, and later President of the US to build influence. I'm not sure how you can't grasp this.
How can someone so weak, have such influence? How can a person who can influence the entire DEM party to not run as the most powerful person in the world, not be strong enough to get stuff done in Congress?


Gbaji wrote:
I answered this already. She's narrowly beating him. He's only 25% down in total pledged delegates (that's in total relative numbers, it's like 57% to 43% if we use a percentage scale). He's well within the margin of super delegates. If Clinton were not "weak", he'd be 1000 pledged delegates behind her, not less than 300. You keep asking where he is. The answer is that he's far far far closer than he should be if she were a strong candidate.

I'm just not sure how much more clear I can be with that answer.
By actually answering the question. I ask again, if Clinton is "weak", then WTF is Sanders and everyone else, given that she has the most votes? You're just arguing how weak she is. I'm asking you, if she's weak and is doing better than everyone else (GOP and DEM), then what does that make them? Strong?


Gbaji wrote:
In August? No. In November? They'd have little to no choice. I'm also not talking about what they would want, but what they'd be able to do about it. I'm fully on board with the idea that the DNC made a mistake clearing the field for Clinton as they did. I'm also quite sure that if they could go back in a time machine to a year ago and tell themselves what the primary is looking like today, their past selves would have allowed other candidates to get into the race. She's not doing nearly as well as they almost certainly assumed.


You also have to understand that "clearing the field" meant not allowing anyone they thought was remotely a threat to Clinton's chances into the race. The fact that Sanders is doing as well as he is indicates either that he's a far stronger candidate than they thought, or she's a far weaker candidate than they thought. And my money is on Clinton being far weaker. For reasons I've already explained multiple times.
To clarify, if Hillary dropped out of the race in November, you're saying that the DNC establishment would not have gotten behind another candidate beside Sen. Sanders?
#155 Mar 30 2016 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
While I'm sure a large portion of that are disaffected people who might otherwise not get involved in any primary at all, at least some of that has got to be left leaning people who might otherwise vote in the Dem primary, but don't see a contest there, and see a weak candidate they don't have the ability to replace, and realize that their best odds are to sabotage the GOP chances by voting Trump.
Or...right wing voters love Trump.


Occam's razor and all that.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#156 Mar 30 2016 at 9:35 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If we take away the super delegates, she has less than a 300 point lead on him. If we swapped the super delegates from one to the other, he'd be leading by 200 delegates.
If a meteor landed on her, Sanders would have all the delegates!


So all Sanders needs to do is advance to mythic and take Thoth as his minor god and he's cinched it.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#157 Mar 31 2016 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Or just take nine levels of arcane magic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#158 Mar 31 2016 at 8:46 AM Rating: Decent
After this latest bout of crazy coming from Donald Trump about punishing women for having abortions, I can honestly say that I would vote for Hillary Clinton if I had to choose between him or her.

I pray to Heaven above that I am not asked to waste my vote on someone I feel has a track record of marching us into unjust war, unjust regime change that leaves Libya vulnerable to Da'Esh, championed three-strike legislation that gave rise to the privatized prison industrial complex in this nation, stood quietly by as Glass-Steagall was overturned, and other things I see as terrible social evils.. As a primarily issue-driven voter, I think I'd rather join the Sedated Amateur Firebreathers Union than vote for here, but here we are. Trump is evil and Hillary is the lesser one. Guess that's the way of it. The country I love aspires to be a barrel with a scraped bottom.

While there's a chance that Bernie can make it though, I hope we fight like everliving hell for it! It's a just cause, and I do NOT believe her coronation is an inevitability. Not with 2,000+ delegates still left to compete for!

Edited, Mar 31st 2016 10:48am by Lefein
#159 Mar 31 2016 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I believe in a just cause, too. One where you grapple a hatchback to a military helicopter and fly around an island, using it as a wrecking ball to topple statues. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 Mar 31 2016 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If we take away the super delegates, she has less than a 300 point lead on him. If we swapped the super delegates from one to the other, he'd be leading by 200 delegates.
If a meteor landed on her, Sanders would have all the delegates!


So all Sanders needs to do is advance to mythic and take Thoth as his minor god and he's cinched it.


What if Trump takes Set and unleashes all the animals?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#161 Mar 31 2016 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I believe in a just cause, too. One where you grapple a hatchback to a military helicopter and fly around an island, using it as a wrecking ball to topple statues. Smiley: thumbsup
Not like there are many uses for a hatchback to begin with.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#162 Mar 31 2016 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Well, you can put things into them from behind, if that's the kind of thing you're into.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#163 Mar 31 2016 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
While I'm sure a large portion of that are disaffected people who might otherwise not get involved in any primary at all, at least some of that has got to be left leaning people who might otherwise vote in the Dem primary, but don't see a contest there, and see a weak candidate they don't have the ability to replace, and realize that their best odds are to sabotage the GOP chances by voting Trump.
Or...right wing voters love Trump.


Occam's razor and all that.
Watching the more moderate republicans try to dance around the growing right-wing fringe of the party is becoming increasingly comical. The initial Tea Party movement thing was embarrassing to the "slightly right of mainstream" crowd. Then they got a bunch of nutjobs into office, who subsequently managed to get the government derailed. Now you have a large movement of people with their blood boiling who look like they're going to get their candidate on the ballot. It just gets better and better. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#164 Mar 31 2016 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Then they got a bunch of nutjobs into office, who subsequently managed to get the government derailed.
No, no, no those aren't True Scottsmen. They're actually liberals, who all the liberal voters know about and voted for, who are posing as conservatives to sabotage the good name of the conservative party.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#165 Mar 31 2016 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Then they got a bunch of nutjobs into office, who subsequently managed to get the government derailed.
No, no, no those aren't True Scottsmen. They're actually liberals, who all the liberal voters know about and voted for, who are posing as conservatives to sabotage the good name of the conservative party.
This is why you need to get rid of welfare! People without jobs have too much time on their hands and are ruining America! If they were working 12 hour days at Jack in the Box like normal people they'd never cause problems! Smiley: motz
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#166 Mar 31 2016 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
While I'm sure a large portion of that are disaffected people who might otherwise not get involved in any primary at all, at least some of that has got to be left leaning people who might otherwise vote in the Dem primary, but don't see a contest there, and see a weak candidate they don't have the ability to replace, and realize that their best odds are to sabotage the GOP chances by voting Trump.
Or...right wing voters love Trump.


Occam's razor and all that.
Right wing voters, those who feel that any establishment has left them out in the cold too long and us internet ****lords who are all voting because we love Daddy.
#167 Mar 31 2016 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
Ruh-roh! What's this? Better hold off on those coronation ceremony tickets for a bit!
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/bernie-sanders-gaining-clinton-her-own-backyard
#168 Mar 31 2016 at 11:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Lefein wrote:
Ruh-roh! What's this? Better hold off on those coronation ceremony tickets for a bit!
The Last Paragraph wrote:
Still, with Sanders trailing in the delegate count, he'll need to start racking up meaningful wins—not just close contests—in delegate-rich states like New York in order to catch up to Clinton.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#169 Mar 31 2016 at 12:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Shouldn't we wait for Sanders to be leading in New York by 20pts before calling anything off?

If you have two polls within 14 days showing a 30pt swing, that doesn't represent a trend, it represents a need for more polling.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#170 Mar 31 2016 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
If Bernie wins by 20 in CA he will have a shot.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#171 Mar 31 2016 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Shouldn't we wait for Sanders to be leading in New York by 20pts before calling anything off?

If you have two polls within 14 days showing a 30pt swing, that doesn't represent a trend, it represents a need for more polling.

With more primaries coming up on Tuesday, all more polling will do is reflect more premature data. In fact, things will only get better for Sanders.
#172 Mar 31 2016 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Just for fun that Emerson poll looks like it has the smallest sample size, and was restricted to land lines. The land line part would presumably make it less likely to capture a key Sanders demographic, which is younger people. Probably could just throw out that data point and have Clinton's lead drop from +40 last year, to +20 a month ago, to +12 in the most current poll. Would fit better with the general tends across the country in that regard, and with the 3 other polls.

Edit: Seriously why would anyone bother to do a land-line only poll in this day and age? Smiley: confused

Edit2: Not sure why the RealClearPolitics page is showing 298 likely voters polled for the Emerson poll (typo?). That was the subset for the Republican Primary, the Democratic one was 373 likely voters, which wouldn't make it the smallest poll any more. Point about landlines is still probably valid however.

Edited, Mar 31st 2016 3:26pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#173 Mar 31 2016 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Landline polls are cheaper because you know where the other end is actually located (as opposed to people keeping a cell number when they move or broad overlay area codes) and because you don't have to worry about laws regulating cell phone polling.

In any event, I'd want to see a few more polls before making a guess where the trend is at.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#174 Mar 31 2016 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
What if Trump takes Set and unleashes all the animals?


Converting animals to his cause has always been his modus operandi, so I imagine this happened some time ago. Probably has a shrine hidden in the Trump Hotel.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#175 Mar 31 2016 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except in this case, I think it's "there's a lot of difference, but Clinton is going to win anyway". I'll also repeat my assertion that since most on the Left assume that Clinton will win, if they aren't terribly confident in Clinton, their best chance of helping the Dems win is to vote in the GOP primary for the candidate they think she has the best shot against.

This basically never happens. People barely bother to vote in primaries to begin with, much less make some sweeping effort to strategically vote for some other guy.


Yeah. I get that this is something people often talk about doing, or propose doing, or whatever, but no one ever does (or not in sufficient numbers to make any difference anyway), so normally I'd dismiss the suggestion. However, when you look at Trumps primary numbers, and polling, it's quite clear that most of his support is coming from people who don't normally identify themselves as Republicans, and certainly don't normally vote in the GOP primaries. As I said above, what percentage of those are folks who normally don't involve themselves in primaries for either party, and what percentage are folks who might normally vote in the Dem primary, but don't see a contest there, so are voting in the GOP primary instead, is impossible to determine. But his primary support is coming from outside the traditional GOP voter pool. That much is clear.

Ironically, if I'm right, and a more than insignificant percentage of his primary support is coming from Dem voters voting Trump to sabotage the GOP, this will represent a huge problem for Trump if he wins the nomination, since his actual support (ie: those who want to see him win the nomination and the general) will be lower (how much?) than his current numbers would indicate. If no one's doing this, then his rise represents a true shift in the GOP, and a true broadening of the party's base. Which may very well spell doom for the Democrats and Clinton in November. Sure, some GOP voters will choose not to vote for him for ideological reasons (like myself), but a lot more will because in their minds, he's still better than Clinton.

I get that primary numbers don't normally translate into general election numbers, but this is a pretty massive increase. And in response to a GOP candidate who is well outside the "normal" range, politically speaking. I suppose we could speculate that this would somehow narrow support in the general, but I'm not so sure. I suspect there's a lot of angry people, pissed off at 8 years of failed Obama policies and/or just pissed off at the establishment itself, who don't are as much about traditional small government ideology as I do, who'll flock to vote for him, if for no other reason than to tip over the apple cart. It'll be a tough choice for rank and file Republicans if given a choice between Clinton and Trump. Clinton is the devil you know. Trump is an unknown, but at least on paper has an (R) after his name. I'm just not sure as many people will stay home or vote Clinton in that situation as are gained (again, if the primary numbers mean anything at all).

Suppose we'll see. If that even comes up, of course.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#176 Mar 31 2016 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

If Lincoln Chaffee had anywhere near the influence on the party (or possibly as much dirt on folks) as Bill Clinton does, you might have a point. She is owed it because she and her husband want it, and the party for any of a number of reasons we could speculate about, is willing to give it to them. It has nothing at all to do with her personal strengths as a politician.
The hypocrisy is that the biggest attack on Sen. Rubio was that he was another Sen. Obama in the making, an inexperienced senator not willing to "wait" his turn. You can't go back now and claim that he was the best qualified candidate. He wasn't, that's why the party "owes" her.


I honestly have no clue what you think that has to do with what I wrote. You're like rambling off in different directions. Say on target man!

Quote:
How can someone so weak, have such influence? How can a person who can influence the entire DEM party to not run as the most powerful person in the world, not be strong enough to get stuff done in Congress?


I never said she was "weak" in terms of political influence. Quite the opposite. I said she's "weak" in terms of voter support. The people don't actually like her as a candidate. She has a terrible public record. The only reason she's even in the race is because of her political connections. Now, to be fair, you could say that of most politicians, but they often have some other characteristics, experience, or record to draw on. She has... what? Can you actually point to a single accomplishment she's ever achieved politically. I don't mean winning elections. I mean actual policies enacted. Anything?


Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
I answered this already. She's narrowly beating him. He's only 25% down in total pledged delegates (that's in total relative numbers, it's like 57% to 43% if we use a percentage scale). He's well within the margin of super delegates. If Clinton were not "weak", he'd be 1000 pledged delegates behind her, not less than 300. You keep asking where he is. The answer is that he's far far far closer than he should be if she were a strong candidate.

I'm just not sure how much more clear I can be with that answer.
By actually answering the question.


I just freaking did! WTF is wrong with you? At least acknowledge and respond to my answer instead of just re-asking the exact same question. If you don't agree that her narrow lead against a candidate like Sanders indicates weakness, then by all means make that claim and support it.

Quote:
I ask again, if Clinton is "weak", then WTF is Sanders and everyone else, given that she has the most votes? You're just arguing how weak she is.


And I'm telling you exactly why I believe that. She should be blowing him away in delegate count, not beating him 57/43.

Quote:
I'm asking you, if she's weak and is doing better than everyone else (GOP and DEM), then what does that make them? Strong?


She's not running against the GOP right now. She's running only against Sanders. And in a two person race, anything near 50% means that both candidates are seen as relatively equal. Sanders is *not* a strong candidate. He's a terrifically weak candidate. The fact that he's running anywhere close to her does not mean he's strong, it means that she's incredibly weak. So weak, that when voters have a choice only between her and a guy who's laughably unelectable, 20% of them are just staying home, and the rest are only barely voting more for her than him.

That's why she's weak. If she were a strong candidate, she'd be running at somewhere closer to 80% of the pledged delegates at this point.

Quote:
To clarify, if Hillary dropped out of the race in November, you're saying that the DNC establishment would not have gotten behind another candidate beside Sen. Sanders?


Sigh. It's like you don't even bother to read. Define "gotten behind"? Would they have wanted another candidate in that situation? Absolutely. Would they be able to mobilize ground games in the states in time to do well with just a couple months of lead time? Probably not. I'm not saying that they would not try, but you keep acting as though all that needs to happen is you sign a piece of paper and your name magically appears on the ballot a month or two later, and you just spend money on TV ads or something and win. There's a lot more to running a primary campaign then that. This was all explained to you last year, when you made the exact same silly claim, and were also told that wasn't going to work.


It's not a matter of what the party establishment would want, but what they could actually do, that late in the game. Get it?

Edited, Apr 1st 2016 2:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 248 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (248)