A Human Becoming
More than a Member
I and others have been saying this for months, but people keep bringing it up. :\
-
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
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Why? The tightness of the race has been glorious. We've had Wall Street and campaign finance and inequality dominate the political lime lights, with attention on them in mainstream political discourse in a way we haven't seen for decades. Regardless of the result of this Democratic primary, I think it has been an exceptionally healthy one from the perspective of American democracy and I hope it goes on longer. I don't want immigrant bashing to be the front of the newspapers for months.
QuiteWhittle
Member
The only Dem regularly beating Carson before his implosion was Biden.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
By 0.5 on average, yes he was. :3
It's okay, Bam, it's okay. Clinton's numbers will improve if you wish hard enough upon a star.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I said last October in my initial post. Didn't I?
She could win by 7 and that wouldnt happen so let's talk bicycles and post it note flavors.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Fair enough. We're not in October, though, we're basically in February. The polls do start becoming more and more predictive from this point in.
ugaboga232
Member
Can you explain to a political noob why everyone thinks Bernie is completely done already? I know his lead in Iowa is slim at best, plus the structural problems of how the caucus works means he has to win by a few % points to come out even and he has big problems with minorities, but is it not still plausible that he starts to ride some momentum in the case he wins Iowa and NH?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Like all those polls that showed McCain doing well against Clinton and Obama at this time in 2008?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Unlike Bam Bams and his increasing desperation in explaining Clinton's terrible match-ups, I don't actually think what you link to will happen, though. I'm just explaining that in the unlikely-to-happen event of the Sanders Rampage, he doesn't need to win South Carolina or even do huge amounts better among black voters. +6 is enough assuming he can also get +7 with white voters.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I brought up good faith discussion. What did I say that requires this kind of personal nonsense about being desperate? The polling is there for anyone to see. It's not exactly all sunshine and rainbows for any Dem candidate so I'm not sure what the debate is.
You need to look at where his support is coming from. It's almost all white people from the ages of 18 to 24, the democratic primary is far more diverse than that but the first two states are very white and are masking this deficiency. Unless he finds a way to chip into Clinton's enormous lead with african-american voters he stands no chance.
JesseEwiak
Member
Bluntly, in the case of every other insurgent candidate, they had some institutional support and actual support among the actual base of the party - ie. black Democrat's. Also, in other situations, there was close races in other states already before Iowa & NH.
Well, I think the age range goes more to 30 than 24.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The 5 polls conducted within this week last year were Obama +6, McCain +7, Obama +2, Obama +2, Obama +3. You could call the winner from that correctly, if not the margin very well. In 2012 they were dead on, you were already getting accurate results from the Obama-Romney match-ups.
I'm not saying they're perfect, I'm saying they have at least some predictive power. Right now, that predictive power says Sanders is a better candidate than Clinton.
EDIT: The age range is for Sanders support is to 45 at this point. 18-24 year olds are about 3% of the Dem primary electorate, you ain't getting jack shit with just 18-24 year olds.
And the Berniestans are the ones that complain about Hillary supporters driving them away from voting for her in the general. With supporters like Crab who are willing to take personal pot-shots at everyone that isn't on the Bernwagon it's really a concern pointed at the wrong candidate's supporters.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yo, I'm just dishing out what I get in here. You outnumber me like 10-1.
Black Mamba
Member
Honestly, I disagree with the first half. I really think outside the first few states, not many people are paying any attention to Hillary vs Bernie and the whole discussions. Sure, among political junkies and the early states people are, but the GOP has taken over the actual conversations people have.
Like, the Superbowl, NBA, Oscars, GOP Primary, Making a Murderer, Star Wars, and other things have so overshadowed the Dem Primary.
To your second point, you're right. Which is why I said a part of me wishes she ends it. The other part likes that it's a good, healthy primary for her. But the other part has gotten annoyed by this thread so I'm being selfish, here.
Also, the Dem Primary is pretty boring in comparison to the GOP one. Basically, it's Hillary wins Iowa and it's over or she doesn't and Bernie has maybe a chance. And the only thing to discuss about Iowa is whether Bernie gets enough young voters out and in enough precincts.
With the GOP, it's about what type of voters Trump has, will they show up, will Cruz win. What will the other candidates do if cruz or Trump wins? And then who comes in 2/3 in NH to him? Do they consolidate? Etc.
It's actually interesting from multiple facets while the Dem Primary, frankly, is boring. It's very traditional. The GOP one is balls to the wall insane. I mean, the establishment is propping up Trump against Ted Cruz. Hilarious!
If she wins Iowa, especially comfortably, the primary is over. She wins everything but New Hampshire and Vermont, for the most part.
Bernie has to win iowa to even have a chance.
And even if the Bernie followers will keep talking up his chances, I think people here will just ignore them. Maybe laugh.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
2008 and 2012 are just two samples. What about 2000? What about 1992? What about 1988? It's ridiculous.
Right now, the favorability polls show that at least 20% of voters don't even know who Sanders is or don't know enough to form any opinion of him. What predictive power can there be for how those people who are unfamiliar with him will respond positively or negatively to him?
And_Gignac
Member
Gather them, Crab!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know. If Trump wins Iowa, I think it's similar to the Clinton-wins-Iowa scenario in that the winner is basically done. Iowa was one of Trump's worst states, if he can win there it's basically game over. If I wake up on Feb 2nd and it's Clinton/Trump, my thinking is it's just a formality for both sides at that point.
JesseEwiak
Member
I just find it amusing Crab is such a big time Sanders supporter when the guy pushing the college plan he's most supportive of is Marco Rubio
See this thread for Crab's sterling defense - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1148124
ugaboga232
Member
Thanks to everyone who responded, will temper my interest in bernie. Clinton is a decent second choice but some legitimate steps toward better healthcare would have been nice. Lot of people sick and dying from super treatable and preventable illnesses. The AMA no longer even well represents doctors anymore which is pissing off a lot of the medical community. Has clinton said anything about funding research?
And isn't Trump up way more than bernie is nationally? Bernie at least has the dubious advantage of not being quite as well known or focusing as much in other states so theres still chance for a media frenzy momentum thing (this is almost certainly a big weakness) whereas trump seems like he is gonna win every state.
And isn't Trump up way more than bernie is nationally? Bernie at least has the dubious advantage of not being quite as well known or focusing as much in other states so theres still chance for a media frenzy momentum thing (this is almost certainly a big weakness) whereas trump seems like he is gonna win every state.
The media is not letting her walk away with a "win." I think odds are pretty good that she walks away with more delegates regardless but she ain't winning.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The mean error 9 months out is about 6.7 points (compared to 10.6 points 12 months out). It dips lower and lower throughout the primary season and trends towards 2.3 (which is the average amount polls are wrong by on the day of the election). 6.7 ain't bad. There's a number of Rep matchups Sanders beats Clinton on by more than that amount in Iowa.
If every single person who currently doesn't know who Sanders is and does know who Clinton is decided they found Sanders unfavourable, his net favourability would still be higher than Clinton. So you don't need to make any predictions on that front.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Mimicking HRC with the "let's desperately misportray the opponent's case!". This is "Sanders wants to abolish healthcare!" level stuff, c'mon, step up.
Black Mamba
Member
I disagree. I think people are overestimating Trumps chances if he wins Iowa.
Will the later states go "Wait, WTF is going on!?" Will there become a consolidation of an establishment candidate?
It's very possible Trump winning Iowa is bad for him. Hear me out.
If Trump wins Iowa and Cruz falls to like 4/5 in NH, his election campaign may be over. I doubt he drops out, but he may become insignificant. Where do his voters go? It's actually likely to Rubio if he manages to be 2nd in NH. And now it can become a Trump vs Rubio battle in which case cooler heads may prevail and nominate Rubio in the end. I'm not saying this will happen but it seems very plausible, to me.
On the flip side, Cruz winning Iowa is very interesting. For one, he'll get a boost in NH. Not enough to win, but enough to be relevant. And thus, relevant the entire Primary. So let's say Trump wins NH. Now it likely becomes a Trump vs Cruz vs Rubio/Kasich/Jeb/Christie (whichever turns out better) the rest of the way, which most likely allows Trump to win easily.
On the other hand, losing Iowa could hurt Trump's "winner" aspect to his campaign. And maybe he loses NH or barely wins, hurting his narrative. And then maybe the establishment pick takes hold. Or maybe Cruz takes hold. I don't know.
What I do know is that Trump winning or losing Iowa doesn't change how variable things go.
If she wins by 7, you bet your sweet ass she will. The media will abandon it and just pay attention to the GOP. They'll bring it up a little as Bernie wins NH but it will be half-assed.
This is the only political thread on the board that isn't instantly filled with Bernie supporters referring to Hillary as a robot, a republican, a corporate shrill, an old hag and far worse. Let's have some perspective on this - one set of supporters is very demonstrably more unpleasant about the candidates than the other.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The way I see it is that Bernie stans have a bad habit of insulting Clinton; Clinton stans have a bad habit of insulting Bernie stans. One set of supporters is very demonstrably more demeaning than the other.
ugaboga232
Member
I have seen some posters here calling bernie supporters crazies which isn't exactly nice either but lets just agree to all be civil and pass the popcorn when the trump train goes full Freedom Girl level stuff.
JesseEwiak
Member
So, you do believe the public college should be of no cost to the student and paid through general taxation, like Bernie Sanders does?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think there's enough popcorn in the world to satiate my paranoia Trump might actually win, sadly. ;_;
Retromelon
Member
i am a professed bernie stan, but you don't see how the behavior of one might be somehow linked to the demeaning of the other?
and obama will not be the left's reagan. there will be a general fondness but no worship.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think it's what we should ultimately aim for, yes. If we can't achieve that or at least not immediately, I'd prefer a regulated HCC system to a loan system.
EDIT: Well, to be more precise, I think the part of public college aside from the actual personal monetary benefits should be of no cost to the student. How you do that is up to question. You could have a graduate tax, or you could just assume high income-earners are probably graduates and ramp up progressive taxes, or you could use public-option HCCs. As long as it's free at the point of use and as long as it remains progressive rather than regressive, I'm pretty open to suggestions.
Forgot about that - I'm surprised Cruz hasn't run a looped 30 second ad of Trump saying, "How stupid are the people of Iowa...you've picked a lot of losers," you-didn't-build-that-style.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I find it funny that Crab supports Sanders and not Corbyn. Socialism but not in my country, am I right?
Corbyn and Sanders aren't really that similar, though. Sanders would be pretty unremarkable in the Labour Party, or in the political landscape of pretty much any Western democracy not named America. Corbyn is a literal socialist; I don't think there's a single figure as left as Corbyn in as significant a position as Corbyn in any other Western democracy at all. For what it's worth, I have patience for a fair amount of what Corbyn says and I don't really support any of the not-Corbyns; he was my second choice on the ballot and I'm actually somewhat inclined to think that if it wasn't obvious he was going to win I'd have made him first anyway, to make a point to the PLP. I'm basically waiting for a Corbyn-like that dumps all of the foreign policy stuff and focuses on the domestic economic arguments; my personal feeling about Corbyn is that he signals the shape of future political movements rather than being the movement itself because he just has too much associated with him in a way Sanders does not.
Black Mamba
Member
Exactly. Pick Ted Cruz, because he's a loser.
I was mostly just kidding
I actually agree with you on an economic-Corbyn like without the foreign policy craziness, but let's not thread derail.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Fair enough. Having said that, can we just appreciate he was a 350-to-1 outsider for the Labour leadership when betting opened? Even Sanders started at 33-to-1. Corbyn was literally considered 10 times less likely to win the Labour leadership than Sanders is to win the Dem nomination. I don't even know how to describe to the Americans here how literally ridiculous that election was. I'm still baffled, confused, and not entirely sober.
Corbyn was literally considered 10 times less likely to win the Labour leadership than Sanders is to win the Dem nomination. I don't even know how to describe to the Americans here how literally ridiculous that election was. I'm still baffled, confused, and not entirely sober.ugaboga232
Member
This republican primary has been quite hilarious, I look forward to every debate. Hopefully things get rough and dirty on thursday.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
This assumes those who find him favorable cannot possibly be turned. As I recall, Clinton was at 60 before she became a candidate and faced the GOP onslaught. The point is, the predictive power of these polls is BARELY above meaningless.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Because its like debating Black Helicopters (which frankly is likely more popular). It has no relevance.
Not even with bernie.
Fair enough. Having said that, can we just appreciate he was a 350-to-1 outsider for the Labour leadership when betting opened? Even Sanders started at 33-to-1.
I guess that's partly attributable to the fact that the PLP is more out of sync with the average Labour party member than the Democrats are with their average member. While many may disagree with the establishment, I don't think Democrat members in generally are wildly more left-wing than their representatives, unlike with Labour.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Oh, yeah, the PLP was absolutely out of it. How a party even manages to become so far estranged from its members in the first place is baffling. I mean, the UK is probably more susceptible to it because of the more autonomous and centralized party apparatus, but even so, the PLP is barking. Democrats are definitely more in touch with their members, if not perfectly so.
JesseEwiak
Member
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
"This is what I think Crab is missing."
Shame I beat you to "this" in the post directly before yours, right?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked