Yea, Weiner didn't write a NYT op-ed today. If only he had been able to keep his dick-pics on his phone...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
Yea, Weiner didn't write a NYT op-ed today. If only he had been able to keep his dick-pics on his phone...
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
He must be taking notes from H. A. Goodman.
The more I look at polling and other information, I'm actually starting to truly believe Nate Silver is right that Trump will start to fall apart in Iowa and NH.
Exactly what are the signs that Trump will start to fall apart in New Hampshire?
Veritigo_X
Member
https://twitter.com/micahcohen/status/687706181733867520
This is getting sad. Why won't Trump-sempai notice Nate-san?
Micah Cohen ‏@micahcohen
They wouldn't let us in, but here's @NateSilver538 in front of @realDonaldTrump's IA HQ.
This is getting sad. Why won't Trump-sempai notice Nate-san?
He's winning in both states in Nate's model! Polls-plus is something he came up with for this cycle, as far as I know.
If Trump notices me before Nate then that's just sad as fuck.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I am 90% certain polls-plus exists only so Nate can continue the narrative that Trump is not the favourite.
It makes sense for him to correct his models to incorporate the heuristics he thinks are important.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Do we really think endorsements are having any impact on the Republican side of the race, though? Like, the performance of Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Jeb is almost inversely proportioned to their nominations.
disastermouse
Banned
The quality of the endorsements matters too. Move-On has boots on the ground. Hillary's got some Union backing, but how enthusiastic are they? The establishment endorsements mean nothing in this election year, at least not for the primary. They add to her halo of inevitability, but that's crumbling under her poll numbers (even though general election match ups are silly right now).
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think they have more impact on the Dem side. The GOP is a whole different league in terms of establishment-dislike.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
$1.3 million on a new mic guy
Well, I heard it's a big thing. I know nothing about it. But I hear it's a very big thing, Trump said, according to an excerpt from an interview with Bloomberg Politics With All Due Respect scheduled to air later Thursday. I think he's a nice guy and I hope he gets it solved.
LOL I feel like someone here fake guessed trump's reaction to the Cruz loan thing.
LOL I feel like someone here fake guessed trump's reaction to the Cruz loan thing.
Veritigo_X
Member
He noticed me before he noticed Nate :LOLOLOLOL
Nail Cruz to the wall Trump, I got money riding on this!
Oh god, stop making me laugh in the office :lol
Kinda sorta. Each district decides how to award their delegates and just running up the numbers in one or two places aren't going to net as many delegates as a state-wide effort will.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Was expecting more wild numbers in the Selzer poll. Sanders didn't gain any new support, Clinton lost plenty. Looks like it's gonna be a race to the finish.
So a Clinton win would be defined as Clinton 55% consisting of 980 delegates to a Sanders 45% consisting of 600 delegates. Something like that?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
More that delegates are distributed to precincts on the basis of what the turnout was in 2008 and 2012. Say we have precinct A and precinct B. In 2008, precinct A had 500 people turn up, and B the same. As a result of this, the formula to decide delegates for 2016 assigns them 10 delegates each. In 2016, only 300 people attend A, but now 700 people attend B. Doesn't matter - A still awards 10 delegates, same for B (although in 2020/4, A will award less). It takes 30 people to elect a delegate in A, but 70 to elect a delegate in B.
Because turnout was so low in typical student areas in '12, they're going to be quite heavily penalized in the delegate count, which in turn harms Sanders.
EDIT: I saw an article from a math wonk which I'm trying to find the link for that suggest Sanders would need to win the popular vote by 4.91% to get a greater number of delegates than Clinton given delegate allocations and expected support concentration. Will report back when I get it.
Black Mamba
Member
So Bernie could win 60-40 and still lose Iowa handily.
That sounds so stupid.
That sounds so stupid.
There haven't been many endorsements, though.
Jeb and Rubio have a good amount
Caucuses make no goddamned sense.
terrible. Just suck up your pride+tradition and do a primary. Jeez That goes for all the states who do caucuses.
No. He'd almost certainly win if he got 60-40. More that Clinton could win if she only lost, say, 47-53 in the popular vote. Anything above that and Sanders would almost definitely win. I'm still trying to find this article because it was really good and I can't.Should have linked you guys to it when I first read it.
and since the popular vote is not shown it works in Clinton's favor to have a close race provided she squeeze every delegate out of the non-college areas who might be more favorable to her? The news media will be reporting the delegate percent and not the raw vote.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No. He'd almost certainly win if he got 60-40. More that Clinton could win if she only lost, say, 47-53 in the popular vote. Anything above that and Sanders would almost definitely win. I'm still trying to find this article because it was really good and I can't.
Should have linked you guys to it when I first read it.Aaron Strife
Banned
Yup.
Here are some close GOP-held state legislatures, which need to be priorities for 2016:
Arizona Senate (+4)
Colorado Senate (+1)
Florida Senate (+7)
Iowa House (+8)
Maine Senate (+3)
Michigan House (+10)
Minnesota House (+5)
New Hampshire House (+40... but the districts are so small it's liable to huge swings though. Dems held this after 2008 and 2012)
New Hampshire Senate (+3)
New Mexico House (+3)
New York Senate (+clusterfuck)
Nevada Assembly (+4)
Nevada Senate (+1)
Pennsylvania Senate (+5)
Washington Senate (+2)
West Virginia Senate (+2) (lol)
Wisconsin Senate (+3)
And then obviously in all the ones not listed we can make huge dents in what are often GOP supermajorities.
Yeah, I'm confused too.
Black Mamba
Member
No. He'd almost certainly win if he got 60-40. More that Clinton could win if she only lost, say, 47-53 in the popular vote. Anything above that and Sanders would almost definitely win. I'm still trying to find this article because it was really good and I can't.
I was being more theoretical that realistic. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen like that but yeah, something like Bernie wins 52-48 and still loses.
Edit: in other news, Planned Parenthood just sues Center For Medical Progress. I haven't looked into it, but my guess is it's for illegally taping.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
There are 1,689 districts in Iowa. Based on their turnout in the last two primaries plus some other factors (whether they have a Democrat in the state legislature, etc), they are awarded an amount of delegates. When the caucus begins, everyone goes to the caucus centre for their district. They have iirc an hour to give speeches in favour of their candidate, to try and persuade people to join them. At the end, everyone casts a vote. The distribution of delegates which most closely matches that vote is sent on to the county caucus. The same thing happens again, with the delegates from the precincts now doing a new caucus at county level, which then produces the final result, in state delegates.
In 2008, Clinton won less district delegates than Edwards, but had a more even distribution, so finished with one more state delegate. It's quite possible and even probable at this right she could do the same to Sanders, who is unevenly distributed across Iowa.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Incidentally, another example of DWS fixing the race is that the caucus is in Feb 1st this year and not Jan 3rd, meaning that students are at university not at home. The distribution of students all across Iowa in 2008 really helped Obama as the insurgent candidate, and even then it still favoured Clinton. As far as we can tell, popular vote would have given delegates 17/14/14 B/E/C not 16/15/14 B/C/E.
Considering Sanders didn't start surging in the state until very recently, it's actually good for him that it's later. Clinton was up in every single poll taken around that date.
Well, conversely, out-of-state students are allowed to register this year in the precinct at which they attend their university.
Here is an Iowa caucus math primer:
http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IDP-Caucus-Math-One-Pager.pdf
Macho Madness
Member
Cruz is going to pick up Democrats in the general.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, the whole race would have been one month back, so I disagree.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I'm not saying Trump will lose my home state, I just expect him to under perform if he does so in Iowa, which I believe he will between his questionable ground game, polling data and the fluidity of voters (Santorum 2012). There could be a domino effect here. As an anecdote, so take it as a grain of salt, I found this discussion by (mostly younger) Real New Hampshire Residents™ on my Facebook feed interesting.
The original question was: GOP/ Conservative/ Republican friends; who are you voting for in February, and why? My mind still isnt made up, just too many to chose from.
This conversation was edited said:"Cruz. The field isn't great, but he has the best chance to beat Trump. Rubio isn't a bad choice either, IMO."
"I'm down to Kasich or Trump. Kasich because he's a smart no nonsense kinda guy who will get things done. Trump....well because he's simply Trump,"
"I still am seriously considering Cruz. Him or Kasich."
"I like cruz the best even though he in Washington everyone hates him. Second choice probably trump"
"I'm starting to lean Kasich. Rubio is high on my list as well."
"Trump! He's the man for the job"
"Donald Trump, because there is absolutely no room for political correctness in this world. The man says what everyone else is afraid to say."
"The man says whatever comes out of his ass. He's going to cause the next world war saying something stupid and offensive to the wrong people.""I can be a complete jerk to everyone that disagrees with me and purposely be politically incorrect for the hell of it too. Doesn't mean I should be president.""I'm torn between Cruz and Trump. Trump doesn't hold back. He's probably the most honest politician I've ever seen! Cruz has some pretty decent plans in regards to obeying the constitution and doing what's right for the country."
"Why the hell won't you people take Rand Paul seriously? Trump? He's a side show. Cruz? He's an out of touch bigot. Religion has no place in politics. Keep your fake god at home."
"But to answer the question. . Cruz!"
"Ted Cruz all the way"
"Rand Paul"
"Trump all the way. Is he loud, arrogant, and racist? I'd say most would agree. But we have a dipshit in office that HATES AMERICANS! We gave the current asshole 8 years worth of trying to fix everything so why not give Trump a shot?"
"Trump. He's tough, not afraid to flex americas muscles, and has the backbone america needs to take on the bullshit going on around the world. He's also an experienced and tough dealmaker."
"Rand Paul. He's the only one that actually believes in what he's saying, has a firm grasp on reality and isn't already bought by corporate money."
"Trump, just like Sanders, loves to talk. He has no clue how to operate a country. He has no discernable knowledge about how things work. Dude is a side show. He's a distraction. All Trump supporters really need to look at Rand Paul. He has a brain, strategic ability, and isn't a circus animal. God damn are some of you silly."
"I hear ya but I don't think he has the backbone to go along with the job. Seems like he could get in and just fall into the masses like everybody else does. Do I personally think that trump could be an awesome president? Maybe not. BUT there needs to be someone that has a set of balls that will shake it up. I think Paul will get chewed alive first. Great thing about politics brother is we all have different opinions haha. They may not be the same but if they were we'd REALLY be fucked up!"" He's got the nut. You just never hear about him and his stances because he's not bought and paid for. Trump is an absolute joke. Just like Sanders, he's just yelling out extreme things he knows people will like. Shock value doesn't make you a decent candidate.""^ but Fox News' benefactors won't make oil money off of Rand so his potential voter base isn't aware he exists."
"The Donald. I think operationally speaking he can easily run the country based on his business record. He will need a good strong cabinet to keep some of his opinions at bay. Overall though, I think he is the more sensible pick. I actually do not like any of them."
"Ben Carson, because of the jesus painting" *posts Jesus painting*
""
Who knows, I could be a huge loser like Nate Silver.
They corrected it.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Like, with his hands?
But, even though Clinton came in second with respect to national delegates, she came in third in terms of state delegates (by 0.3% behind Edwards) --- which is what the media reports as its vote totals. So, optics-wise, she came in third place.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's true. She was probably advantaged even at precinct level, though, given the structure of caususes - we just can't tell.
Black Mamba
Member
But the GOP one is the same time. Jan 3 is a stupid time to have a caucus, IMO, because it's right after New Years. I'm not going to argue against a change, there.
On the flip side, the fact that Iowa, a nearly inconsequential state has any say this early benefits Bernie immensely. What if Texas was first?
The caucus itself is stupid. Arguing things like the date (decided before Bernie even was considered to enter IIRC) and such seems pointless.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Don't need to tell me that, I don't even agree with the primary system full stop. America has a fucked up electoral system.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I thought that effort was in limbo.
You're right about that; it's like no one else is competing. Trump seems to be relying heavily on new caucus goers though, which could backfire.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked