Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

He's harder to attack than Hillary. In a normal year, sure, but this is so not a normal year. He's an outsider and he doesn't talk crazy or stupid and he doesn't equivocate or position himself very apparently. Insiders are toast this cycle thanks to Obama's perceived ineffectiveness and Republicans obvious ineffectiveness.

Insiders are toast yet Hillary Clinton has a dominating position in the Dem primary?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

They each have 26 field offices, and they each have precinct captains in each precinct. In fact, Hillary had them in place before Bernie did, or at least, I heard about her's first. As to headlining fewer events, Hillary has more surrogates. She has Vilsack's network (as well as historical Dem supporters) that no amount of Feelin' the Bern can overcome. In a caucus state experience matters. She learned from 2008. She will not repeat the same mistakes she made then. She has Obama's ground game in place. She didn't have to build it from the ground up. She took the best of hers and the best of us. Bernie had to do it all from scratch.

Bernie is so lucky that the two earliest states play to his strengths.

I'm glad she's increased her field office numbers, that's good practice for the general, although I suppose in Iowa specifically it doesn't matter too much. I'm unconvinced surrogates are going to be good enough, though, in a year where the theme has very much been authenticity.

Page 17.

Yeah, that is weird. They have it very consistently, so it's not like it's a one off for this specific poll - possibly something to do with the methodology or some stuff? I know when we poll for party identification in the UK it has to be question 1 not question 38 as it is here because asking questions about particularly topics can make people more/less firm in the party identification.

 

[NeoXChaos]

He's harder to attack than Hillary. In a normal year, sure, but this is so not a normal year. He's an outsider and he doesn't talk crazy or stupid and he doesn't equivocate or position himself very apparently. Insiders are toast this cycle thanks to Obama's perceived ineffectiveness and Republicans obvious ineffectiveness.

The rules that normally decide the nomination are not in place on the Republican side. It is however in place on the Democratic side. As JesseEwiak perfectly explained in another thread:

Even if Sanders wins NH & IA, all the win will be out of his sails once Clinton smashes him in Nevada and South Carolina.

As for the rest, shockingly, pastors in black churches, suburban housewives, and older Democratic voters don't spend a lot of time on Reddit, Buzzfeed, or posting sick memes to Facebook. Hillary's core supporters are the actual core of the Democratic party - the people who do the hard work of getting people to the polls on Election Day during the midterms, instead of posting on FB about how Obama is a neoliberal sellout and that's why they're not voting in the midterms this year.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The rules that normally decide the nomination are not in the place on the Republican side. It is however in place on the Democratic side. As JesseEwiak perfectly explained in another thread:

If Sanders wins Iowa and NH, I do not think Nevada will act as a firewall. It's a caucus with same day registration; that's literally built for momentum based candidates - Obama won it from Clinton despite actually getting a smaller share of the vote for exactly this reason!

Obviously SC will still stop him, and then the Super Tuesday whammy.

 

[User 463088]

I'm glad she's increased her field office numbers, that's good practice for the general, although I suppose in Iowa specifically it doesn't matter too much. I'm unconvinced surrogates are going to be good enough, though, in a year where the theme has very much been authenticity.



Yeah, that is weird. They have it very consistently, so it's not like it's a one off for this specific poll - possibly something to do with the methodology or some stuff? I know when we poll for party identification in the UK it has to be question 1 not question 38 as it is here because asking questions about particularly topics can make people more/less firm in the party identification.

Hillary's unique in that one of her surrogates is an incredibly popular former President. That fills seats and mobilizes the Dem establishment, which, IMO, is the most important thing a good surrogate can do.

I don't get any of their partisan breakdowns. That's just now how the electorate has ever looked.

 

[ivysaur12]

If Republican voter ID was actually tied with Dem ID, Dems would lose every swing state and then some. It would be a wave election we haven't seen for some time.

 

[NeoXChaos]

If Sanders wins Iowa and NH, I do not think Nevada will act as a firewall. It's a caucus with same day registration; that's literally built for momentum based candidates - Obama won it from Clinton despite actually getting a smaller share of the vote for exactly this reason!

Obviously SC will still stop him, and then the Super Tuesday whammy.

That's a big IF. I'll give you NH and raise you IA. Clinton is prepared to get every delegate she can squeeze out of each state this time.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's a big IF. I'll give you NH and raise you IA. Clinton is prepared to get every delegate she can squeeze out of each state this time.

Obviously it's a big if. I'm making no comment on Iowa specifically, I'm just commenting on what happens on the hypothetical. Nevada would not be a firewall.

 

[Holmes]

There's literally no evidence of Sanders winning Iowa, or even having any sort of momentum there lately, so why are the stans holding out hope as if some big change happened? You need to win New Hampshire and Nevada, hope South Carolina isn't a bloodbath, and then for Super Tuesday, just... hope, I guess.

 

[ivysaur12]

Obviously it's a big if. I'm making no comment on Iowa specifically, I'm just commenting on what happens on the hypothetical. Nevada would not be a firewall.

I think the Nevada democratic voters are generally not in Sanders's core coalition, so it would be very tough.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think the Nevada democratic voters are generally not in Sanders's core coalition, so it would be very tough.

Sanders doesn't actually do as badly with Hispanics as he does against black Americans - I think because the campaign's had quite a good Spanish-language effort plus the Clinton brand commands less loyalty among Hispanic voters than it does among black Voters. The last Nevada poll (excluding Gravis, who are shit) was CNN/ORC in October which only had Clinton at +16; at the time Sanders was about 10 points further behind nationally than he is now. Nevada's Democratic community are not a moderate one; unlike SC where even ignoring the black American community Democratic voters tend to be fairly moderate. If Sanders wins Iowa, he will win NH and Nevada, I'm pretty confident. He'll just lose SC, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia; which is obviously where it all ends.

 

[NeoXChaos]

There's literally no evidence of Sanders winning Iowa, or even having any sort of momentum there lately, so why are the stans holding out hope as if some big change happened? You need to win New Hampshire and Nevada, hope South Carolina isn't a bloodbath, and then for Super Tuesday, just... hope, I guess.

I think Hillary is going to over perform her NH numbers. The Republican side and Independent vote there is a big wild card.

 

[Daniel B·]

If Elizabeth joined Bernie (as his VP), pre-nomination, it would be curtains for Hillary, and the rest!

After discussing this at our Bernie storefront opening, my thought that "she is more effective as a Senator", vanished, as she would absolutely be the right, and obvious choice, to champion our progressive policies, if, heaven forbid, something were to happen to Bernie. Also VP's can do legislative work, as Hillary demonstrated, when she "had a stab at" that healthcare bill.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If Republican voter ID was actually tied with Dem ID, Dems would lose every swing state and then some. It would be a wave election we haven't seen for some time.

Yeah voter registration roughly splits 40-30-30 D/R/I. Is edge out Rs a little bit at the moment.

Which means Democrats don't even need to win a majority of Independents (Romney won them in 2012).

In polling however, this is pretty fluid as respondents are usually just self-identifying which can change at the drop of a hat. In 2004 for example, per CNN's exit polls Democrats and Republicans were tied at 37% each. Kerry slightly won with Independents, but had fewer crossover voters than Bush did which more than made up the difference.

Btw I don't feel completely comfortable unless the Democrat is leading by 5 or more. 2008 seemed more or less inevitable, 2012 gave me a little heartburn but the state-by-state polling numbers were pretty good. I was too young in 2004 to know to follow polls or anything like that, naturally I was pretty disappointed but had more important things to worry about at the time like video games and anime (my 2004 is more defined by One Piece going to 4Kids than anything political). 2000 and before I was too young to even have opinions on much of anything other than which name I thought sounded cooler - Bob Dole and Al Gore, baby.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Voter registration is slightly different to party identification, though - many people who consider themselves independent still register for party primaries (as we should well know, given discussion of Sanders). IIRC by self-identification America is 40/30/25 I/D/R (http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx).

 

[User 463088]

Sanders doesn't actually do as badly with Hispanics as he does against black Americans - I think because the campaign's had quite a good Spanish-language effort plus the Clinton brand commands less loyalty among Hispanic voters than it does among black Voters. The last Nevada poll (excluding Gravis, who are shit) was CNN/ORC in October which only had Clinton at +16; at the time Sanders was about 10 points further behind nationally than he is now. Nevada's Democratic community are not a moderate one; unlike SC where even ignoring the black American community Democratic voters tend to be fairly moderate. If Sanders wins Iowa, he will win NH and Nevada, I'm pretty confident. He'll just lose SC, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia; which is obviously where it all ends.

Hillary won Hispanics in 2008 by a 2 to 1 margin against Obama. To pretend that Hispanics aren't one of her strongest demographics is patently false.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Hillary won Hispanics in 2008 by a 2 to 1 margin against Obama. To pretend that Hispanics aren't one of her strongest demographics is patently false.

I'm not saying she's not strong with them - she is. I'm just saying (truthfully) she does worse with Hispanic voters than she does with black voters against Bernie right now. Still leads him with both, but much more heavily among black voters.

 

[disastermouse]

Why should Sanders have been toast months ago? There are only two real candidates in the race, making him the de facto NotClinton, and he represents a part of the Democratic coalition that is always competitive in the primaries.

There are also progressive candidates who could've been much more competitive in the primary like Brown or Warren, but chose not to run because of the strengths of Clinton as a candidate.

I also fundamentally don't see a large enough coalition of Trump or Cruz supporters who can beat Clinton in the general. Suburban voters aren't going to vote for Trump, and Cruz's appeal is limited.

The socialist moniker should have killed him. The 'no PACS' should have killed him. The early missteps with BLM should have killed him. People keep talking about democrats being structurally better positioned for a presidential election, but Hillary was perfectly positioned to win this primary handily. It should never even be this close. Sanders should have been the liberal who rallies a particular part of the left that would otherwise sit it out and Hillary should have been the 'voice of reason' political centrist who takes all the correct positions just when people are starting to pay attention.

But that's not what's happening. She's supposed to be 'the electable candidate' against Bernie's 'principled candidate' but the divide between them and his strength as an outsider has prevented the conversion and I think it will continue to do so.

People keep saying that people's fear of Trump and Cruz will drive the opposition to the polls, but by all measures, a reasonable electorate on the right should have sunk both Trump and Cruz already and it has baffled the conventional wisdom that it hasn't already happened. This cycle isn't behaving normally. In conventional terms, a self-proclaimed socialist shouldn't be doing this well on the left and demagogues shouldn't be doing as well on the right.

This isn't a 'throw the bums out' election cycle, this is a torches and pitchforks election cycle of the kind we don't usually see here. Neither party has adequate control of their base. Money is actually losing votes on the right and is weak on the left, which no one would have predicted.

The Democrats are choosing a 'voice of reason' candidate in an election cycle that is proving the most resistant to reason of any that I've ever seen. There is zero faith in the effectiveness of political institutions and the political process. Everything about this cycle makes Clinton a far weaker candidate than, by rights, she should be.

I'm a Marxist and even I'm baffled that any politician proudly wearing the label 'socialist' is doing as well as he is. This is abnormal by any definition of the term 'abnormal'.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If Elizabeth joined Bernie (as his VP), pre-nomination, it would be curtains for Hillary, and the rest!

After discussing this at our Bernie storefront opening, my thought that "she is more effective as a Senator", vanished, as she would absolutely be the right, and obvious choice, to champion our progressive policies, if, heaven forbid, something were to happen to Bernie. Also VP's can do legislative work, as Hillary demonstrated, when she "had a stab at" that healthcare bill.

Warren endorsing Sanders and Sanders announcing her as a VP pick right before Iowa would be legitimately incredible. I swear to god, the meltdowns could power the nation. Never going to happen, but a man can dream. :')

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I remember the poll where Marco "annul all gay marriages" Rubio beat Hillary Clinton with the youth vote.

GE polls can be fucking weird this far out.

 

[dramatis]

Okay, at the moment 38% of likely Democratic voters intend to vote for a socialist over Clinton. Doesn't really sound that much better for her political adeptness.

I mean, aside from Obama, who had positive ratings in both '08 and '12, and Sanders, who has positive ratings now, and Rubio, who also has positive ratings, and fuck, even Carson manages to scrape over the 0 line. Meanwhile, Clinton, -13. Clinton is lucky the Democratic party is structurally advantaged because she is a hell of a millstone to drag.

I mean, I get that your new narrative to try and sell Bernie is to talk about how unlikable Hillary is (not a new argument) in terms of numbers (this is your new spin on an old argument).

But geez, if she's so unlikable, then Bernie's campaign must really suck. You're spinning Hillary's numbers into armageddon here, and if Bernie Sanders is soooooo likable and not "yesterday's leftovers" (because you know, women have to be called leftovers) and polling better as a generic Dem vs Trump, then why can't he beat Hillary?

The answer is pretty simple: Hillary is better prepared in organization, funding, establishment support, demographic support, technology, and she's running a tighter ship than Bernie Sanders. These are the factors that carry a presidential race today.

A candidate that fumbles with going off script (see the first encounter with BLM, the awkward spin to stump speech from mentions of Paris in second debate) and a campaign that fumbles with demographics (see their statements about women and minorities) are not going to get 'second chances' in the general. That popularity Bernie experiences now is the benefit of not being Hillary Clinton, and therefore not being substantial enough to merit heavy duty attacks by Republicans. His campaign can't even take a bit of heat without turning into a bunch of whiners. They're not going to be strong in anything.

By the way, this millstone raised 18 million for Democratic downticket races. Where's the act to back up Bernie's revolution? It's certainly not coming from him or his campaign.

EDIT: Hillary only won the most votes because a) Obama did better in caucus states which aren't tallied in the same way, and b) she competed in one states Obama did not out of protest. Even taking away b) is enough to have Obama with more votes. Come on, that's being deliberately misleading. Bluntly speaking, she's also a weaker candidate than in '08; nobody likes yesterday's leftovers.

And yet, even if you count the votes, Hillary has experienced significantly more support than Bernie ever has nationwide. Moreover, that was the level of support she achieved with a shoddy campaign back in 2008. This time she's coming with extremely solidified establishment support, Obama's grassroots machine, Obama's tech and Eric Schmidt's contracted tech, the addition of SecState to her resume, the lessons learned from 2008, in a climate where Planned Parenthood (females) and Latinos (a demo she has been strong in) are being threatened by the opposition.

And you would like to argue that she's weaker than she was in 2008?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, I get that your new narrative to try and sell Bernie is to talk about how unlikable Hillary is (not a new argument) in terms of numbers (this is your new spin on an old argument).

But geez, if she's so unlikable, then Bernie's campaign must really suck. You're spinning Hillary's numbers into armageddon here, and if Bernie Sanders is soooooo likable and not "yesterday's leftovers" (because you know, women have to be called leftovers) and polling better as a generic Dem vs Trump, then why can't he beat Hillary?

Massive institutional advantage on Clinton's side through establishment support? Obviously the Democratic establishment is useful in winning a Democratic primary. Less so in a presidential. Honestly, I'm amazed Sanders is doing so well. He's a 74 year old Jewish socialist from a tiny rural state who isn't accepting money from PACs and has no support. 38%. I mean, goddamn. If you're really trying to sell me "Hillary is a great candidate because she can edge out a candidate as described above with the help of Democratic elites", you need to work on your sales pitch.

Also, really on the leftovers thing? I was calling McCain yesterday's leftovers in '08. That's just desperate.

And you would like to argue that she's weaker than she was in 2008?

In the presidential? Yes, absolutely. 100%, no doubt in my mind Clinton '08 would do better in the upcoming election than Clinton '16.

Yo, dramatis, you seem a bit shook. You alright? It's okay, Sanders is gonna lose. You don't need to get so het up about it, yeah? Deep breaths.

 

[User 463088]

Yo, dramatis, you seem a bit shook. You alright? It's okay, Sanders is gonna lose. You don't need to get so het up about it, yeah? Deep breaths.

You know pointing out why we think you're wrong doesn't mean anyone is shook. It's just pointing out why we think you're wrong. That's all.

 

[Plumbob]

The signal-to-noise ratio in this thread has fallen off recently.

When's the next Iowa poll?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You know pointing out why we think you're wrong doesn't mean anyone is shook. It's just pointing out, you know, why we think you're wrong. That's all.

dramatis is legit shook, let's be honest here. The vehemence:content ratio was all wrong.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The signal-to-noise ratio in this thread has fallen off recently.

When's the next Iowa poll?

I think CNN/ORC's monthly is due in the next day or two if they're still doing it. They might wait til later in the month - everyone will want to poll the week directly running into the caucus, so there's not much point doing one now if you know you'er going to be doing another one so soon.

EDIT: Also Monmouth's is also due fairly soon if they're doing it regularly too. Kind of annoying because neither of those pollsters have a methodology particularly favourable to Sanders, the negative hype will be frustrating. Would much prefer a nice YouGOV to get people frenzied.

 

[theprodigy]

dramatis is legit shook, let's be honest here. The vehemence:content ratio was all wrong.

If this is how you're going to post I dunno why even bother calling out PoliGAF in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If this is how you're going to post I dunno why even bother calling out PoliGAF in the first place.

I mean, dramatis has made absolutely no effort and frankly I can't be bothered to make the effort in return when I can have more meaningful conversations with others that retain a basic level of respect. You're right that's probably not acceptable, so I'll probably just ignore him/her from this point.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

If you're going to get concerned, you should get concerned over 10 polls in a row showing Rubio leading by 1 to 3 points. Not the one wacky poll. As people who follow politics, you should know better than to get distracted by the shiny object.

Rubio won't be the nominee. He doesn't have what it takes to win.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Dude notices guy with a Pikachu hat at a Trump rally and makes the assumption that if you're a hardcore gamer (Pikachu hat) going to a white power rally (Trump), then you're probably a Gater. GAF gets impossibly mad:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1168458

 

[thepotatoman]

Rubio won't be the nominee. He doesn't have what it takes to win.

At least he's in a pretty good spot in the expectations game. Cruz has already set the expectation that he's going to win Iowa, so actually winning it isn't going to give him much of a boost. On the other hand, Rubio pulling a somewhat close third should give him a really good boost.

So at least there's that...

 

[User 463088]

Dude notices guy with a Pikachu hat at a Trump rally and makes the assumption that if you're a hardcore gamer (Pikachu hat) going to a white power rally (Trump), then you're probably a Gater. GAF gets impossibly mad:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1168458

I don't get the issue.

I would think a Herman Cain supporter would be a perfect fit for supporting Donald Trump....

 

[Iolo]

At least he's in a pretty good spot in the expectations game. Cruz has already set the expectation that he's going to win Iowa, so actually winning it isn't going to give him much of a boost. On the other hand, Rubio pulling a somewhat close third should give him a really good boost.

So at least there's that...

If Rubio can come in at second or third in all 50 states he should be well on his way to winning the nomination.

 

[NeoXChaos]

If Rubio can come in at second or third in all 50 states he should be well on his way to winning the nomination.

in the long line of presidential losers.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Dude notices guy with a Pikachu hat at a Trump rally and makes the assumption that if you're a hardcore gamer (Pikachu hat) going to a white power rally (Trump), then you're probably a Gater. GAF gets impossibly mad:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1168458

As it turns out, he was exactly the sort of person who he thought attended Trump rallies.

He's a walking self-fulfilling prophecy. Honestly, I find this kind of 'journalism' embarrassing.

Funny stuff. The guy makes fun of stuff that's pretty justifiable to make fun of at a political rally and suddenly he's exactly the same as a Trump supporter.

As an aside, he's a really awesome artist, not a journalist at all. He was just there to tweet funny stuff and compiled it into a Storify later on. I've actually got some of his prints waiting to be framed right now. It was pretty funny see a thread about him in the OT about this of all things.

 

[User 463088]

This isn't strictly Poli related, but I think my politics knowledge helped me on this game. It's kinda fun.

State Mindfield, No Outlines

Some of those small states can fuck right off.

Spoiler

Kidding. Stay Blue!

 

[B-Dubs]

This isn't strictly Poli related, but I think my politics knowledge helped me on this game. It's kinda fun.

State Mindfield, No Outlines

Some of those small states can fuck right off.

Spoiler

Kidding. Stay Blue!

The constant pop-ups are annoying as fuck.

 

[User 463088]

The constant pop-ups are annoying as fuck.

State names popping up or ads? I didn't have any ads when I played it.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Trump, what have you done? You changed the future! You created a Time Paradox!!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

‘El Chapo,’ Mexican Drug Lord, Sat for Interview With Sean Penn

Huh.

Huh

Huh











Huh:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/w...nterview-with-sean-penn.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0

 

[User 406]

This isn't strictly Poli related, but I think my politics knowledge helped me on this game. It's kinda fun.

State Mindfield, No Outlines

Some of those small states can fuck right off.

Spoiler

Kidding. Stay Blue!

100%, 4m31s.

 

[FyreWulff]

Tickets to go see Obama are available starting tomorrow. At 3pm.

One of the ticket locations is about 3-4 blocks from my house.

I'm going to go for it

 

[B-Dubs]

Huh.

Huh

Huh





Huh:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/w...nterview-with-sean-penn.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0

The only reason this is weird is because it's Sean Penn. There was a journalist who did an interview in an ISIS camp a few months back.

 

[dramatis]

Massive institutional advantage on Clinton's side through establishment support? Obviously the Democratic establishment is useful in winning a Democratic primary. Less so in a presidential. Honestly, I'm amazed Sanders is doing so well. He's a 74 year old Jewish socialist from a tiny rural state who isn't accepting money from PACs and has no support. 38%. I mean, goddamn. If you're really trying to sell me "Hillary is a great candidate because she can edge out a candidate as described above with the help of Democratic elites", you need to work on your sales pitch.

Also, really on the leftovers thing? I was calling McCain yesterday's leftovers in '08. That's just desperate.

In the presidential? Yes, absolutely. 100%, no doubt in my mind Clinton '08 would do better in the upcoming election than Clinton '16.

Yo, dramatis, you seem a bit shook. You alright? It's okay, Sanders is gonna lose. You don't need to get so het up about it, yeah? Deep breaths.

Democratic institution provides the ground game for the primaries...and the general. You can try to dampen the effect of the institutional advantage, but that's probably because the institutional advantage isn't on your side.

I'm amazed that Bernie isn't doing better, given the arguments you have about Hillary being a weak candidate, unlikable in the general public perception, and liable to crumble at the sign of any scandal. Except, you know, Bernie hasn't been able to do much of anything against Hillary, for all of his advantages and all of her supposed weakness.

Notably, the institutional advantage did not simply line up behind Hillary. She had to work on gaining their support in the preparation up to this election. If you would like to argue that Hillary didn't put in work to sew up the support of the establishment, go ahead. Hillary has certainly worked a lot harder to secure the kind of lead that she has now compared to Bernie.

I'll call out sexism when I see it. I suppose you don't have to care. Men talking down on women, what else is new.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The Jindal nightmare ends tomorrow. Thank you Louisiana moderate Republicans. Thank you for not being Kentucky, Kansas, Oklahoma, Maine, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan etc. Hopefully in 4 years your states are still standing. I wish you guys could have shared in Democratic victory but alas it was not meant to be I suppose.

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/58400...ion_of_Governor_John_Bel_Edwards_Schedule.pdf

Goodbye Bobby and good riddance. You will become Former Governor tomorrow at 12:00.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

 

[pa22word]

The Jindal nightmare ends tomorrow. Thank you Louisiana moderate Republicans. Thank you for not being Kentucky, Kansas, Oklahoma, Maine, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan etc. Hopefully in 4 years your states are still standing.

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/58400...ion_of_Governor_John_Bel_Edwards_Schedule.pdf

I live in OK and honestly once my brother transfers to UT I am gone. Him being a few hours away at Norman is basically all that is keeping me here at this point. SO is talking kids, and the state is narrowing away education back to the stone age. Just not worth it anymore.

 

[Holmes]

Guys did I miss a poll that had Hilldawg down 20% in Iowa because of this fresh "Hillary is going to lose Iowa" meme?

 

[NeoXChaos]

I live in OK and honestly once my brother transfers to UT I am gone. Him being a few hours away at Norman is basically all that is keeping me here at this point. SO is talking kids, and the state is narrowing away education back to the stone age. Just not worth it anymore.

where to? You are surrounded in a sea of red on every corner.

 

[User 463088]

Guys did I miss a poll that had Hilldawg down 20% in Iowa because of this fresh "Hillary is going to lose Iowa" meme?

Ya it was sponsored by Reddit.

She was doing fine, until the YouTube viewers under 19 managed to swing the entire thing to Bernie in a landslide. She's writing her concession speech right now. He's going to end up with 900% of the available delegates.

 

[eBay Huckster]

This isn't strictly Poli related, but I think my politics knowledge helped me on this game. It's kinda fun.

State Mindfield, No Outlines

Some of those small states can fuck right off.

Spoiler

Kidding. Stay Blue!

100% in 1m:14s.

Nebraska is the actual worst.