• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HylianTom

Banned
Damn. Michael Moore telling Megyn "I'm here for you," along with the handshake, is making its way around the conservative web this morning. Trump probably didn't envision Michael Moore helping him out.

megyn-kelly-michael-moore1.jpg
 
I

ICKE

Banned
HylianTom said:
Damn. Michael Moore telling Megyn "I'm here for you," along with the handshake, is making its way around the conservative web this morning. Trump probably didn't envision Michael Moore helping him out.

megyn-kelly-michael-moore1.jpg
Click to expand...

Does Kelly or anyone in Fox actually believe that endorsements from Moore will help them?

LOL. This will only help Trump. The establishment is completely delusional, they have lost the plot.
 
M

Makai

Member
HylianTom said:
Damn. Michael Moore telling Megyn "I'm here for you," along with the handshake, is making its way around the conservative web this morning. Trump probably didn't envision Michael Moore helping him out.

megyn-kelly-michael-moore1.jpg
Click to expand...
AHHHHHHHH! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!

It's like everyone is consciously trying to get Trump elected.
 
J

johnsmith

remember me
President Bernie would not get higher than normal democratic turnout in the midterms. To say otherwise is delusional and out of touch with political reality.


And the idea that Bernie would be kicked out of the dem primaries for being at an unsanctioned debate that Hillary was also at. Thanks guys. I really needed a laugh this morning.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
I do find it highly ironic that Fox News spent the better part of the last three years criticizing Obama got talking to Iran and complaining that he was doing it from a position of weakness, the Iranians weren't trustworthy, there was no upside, and yet when Trump does the exact same thing with regards to the debate, Fox starts bitching.

Hypocrisy at its finest (beyond Trump's personal brand of hypocrisy of course).
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Quinnipiac poll of Iowa: Sanders 49%, Clinton 45%

It finds -- once again -- that Clinton leads among Iowa Democrats who have caucused before (54%-38%), while Sanders leads among first-time caucus-goers (72%-26%). So turnout among young, first-time caucus-goers since '08 is going to be a big factor in who wins this race.
It continues the trend that polls using Random Digit Dialing (RDD) like Quinnipiac show Sanders doing better, while polls that use voter lists from the party show Clinton doing better (like Monday's Fox poll, which had Clinton leading Sanders, 48%-42%).
It all comes down to turnout: Yes, this is a cliché -- but it's also true: Trump and Sanders need a new turnout to win Iowa, while Clinton and Cruz need a traditional turnout. That's what all of the polling backs up, including today's Quinnipiac poll. By the way, we'll have Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina results from a brand-new NBC/WSJ/Marist poll coming out tomorrow at 6:00 am ET.
Click to expand...

.
 
N

noshten

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Quinnipiac poll of Iowa: Sanders 49%, Clinton 45%
Click to expand...


Today, 2 percent are undecided and 19 percent of those who name a candidate say they might change their mind.

The gender gap remains as men back Sanders 63 - 32 percent, while women back Clinton 54 - 40 percent.

Likely Democratic Caucus participants 18 to 44 years old back Sanders over Clinton 78 - 21 percent. Clinton is ahead 53 - 39 percent among voters 45 to 64 years old and 71 - 21 percent among voters over 65 years old.
Click to expand...

They probably had am much bigger sample size in the 18-44 demographic. So basically who is in the lead in Iowa in the polls depends entirely if a poll is heavily biased either towards older or younger voters. When it's balanced they are at a virtual tie.
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
NeoXChaos said:
Quinnipiac poll of Iowa: Sanders 49%, Clinton 45%



.
Click to expand...

The high turnout is almost guaranteed, imo. Still, Sanders vote is going to be so over-concentrated that he probably wont win the delegate count. Theres also the "issue" that some of his most conservative voters overlap with Trump, so he may lose some fanatical voters who decide to caucus for the Reps instead of the Dems.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Scarborough's "Morning Joe" played a series of Fox News clips showing Kelly criticizing Trump's decision to skip Thursday's debate hosted by Fox.

"That is just good, unbiased journalism. And if I were a candidate, I certainly would want that person asking me questions in a fair and balanced way," Scarborough deadpanned with sarcasm.

"As I've said before, I would rather set myself onfire in front of the Fox News studio than go on the debate stage with that."
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...er-set-myself-on-fire-than-attend-debate-with

Joe is tough enough to beat Iran but not tough enough to get maybe two or three questions from Megyn Kelly.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Winning the popular vote and losing the delegates should be more than enough for a "Sanders beat Hillary, but dnc shenanigans cheat him out of delegates" narrative to arise from the results.

hrm. the second bit obviously only plays really well with his base, but the first bit, tinged with "unfairness"... there might be something there.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Coriolanus said:
Winning the popular vote and losing the delegates should be more than enough for a "Sanders beat Hillary, but dnc shenanigans cheat him out of delegates" narrative to arise from the results.

hrm. the second bit obviously only plays really well with his base, but the first bit, tinged with "unfairness"... there might be something there.
Click to expand...
The popular vote isn't released. The delegate count and turnout (roughly) is.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
I read that whole thing thinking that the conclusion would be that he should drop out of the race.

Then in the very last segment of the last line.... wat
Holmes said:
The popular vote isn't released. The delegate count and turnout (roughly) is.
Click to expand...

BERNIE ROBBED

but seriously? Seems like such an odd, arbitrary decision.

Ah well, there goes my interest in the narratives that could arise from iowa. Limits things considerably.

Why do you do this to me, holmes?
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Coriolanus said:
BERNIE ROBBED

but seriously? Seems like such an odd, arbitrary decision.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. He could run-up the score big-time in Des Moines, but it won't help his delegate count. It'd be like Dems winning California by a few extra million votes more than the usual; they'd still get the same 55EVs.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
HylianTom said:
Oh yeah. He could run-up the score big-time in Des Moines, but it won't help his delegate count. It'd be like Dems winning California by a few extra million votes more than the usual; they'd still get the same 55EVs.
Click to expand...

Yes, that i had already understood. Found it bizarre that they don't report vote breakdown.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Ogrekiller said:
Oh gee, now the independent run speculation is in play now.
Click to expand...

Now? People have been talking about Sanders going independent pretty much since he said he wouldn't go independent. But somehow that article did manage to be dumber than the run of the mill internet "Bernie should just go independent, maaaaan" idiot. Yeah, the Democratic party is being rendered completely irrelevant by Bernie's popularity and fuckin' Bloomberg. That's some brilliant analysis.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Holmes said:
The popular vote isn't released. The delegate count and turnout (roughly) is.
Click to expand...


I mean, it is released...


...in August.

But yes, if Sanders loses the delegates by 3% or less, you can almost certain he won the popular vote - not that it will be reported that way. Even up to about a 5% loss there's a reasonable probability he was the popular vote winner.

On random digit dialing vs. voter file lists, this is essentially much the same as landline vs. mixed landline/cell. Voter file lists only capture voters with stable addresses and telephone numbers (otherwise there's frequent mismatch), which tends to be older people and people in rural areas; random digit dialling picks up more young people and people in urban areas. So again, it's not really telling us anything we don't know already: if new caucus-goers turn up, Sanders wins, if they don't, he doesn't.

In fact, we have remarkably stability from almost all pollsters about the voting intention of people who have gone to caucus before - it's 54 Clinton, 38 Sanders, or within the MoE of that, in almost all major pollsters now. It's different predictions of new caucus-goer turnout that are accounting for most of the structural difference between pollsters. That's why I really can't wait for the final Selzer, because they're really good at getting that right.
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
Coriolanus said:
I read that whole thing thinking that the conclusion would be that he should drop out of the race.

Then in the very last segment of the last line.... wat


BERNIE ROBBED

but seriously? Seems like such an odd, arbitrary decision.

Ah well, there goes my interest in the narratives that could arise from iowa. Limits things considerably.

Why do you do this to me, holmes?
Click to expand...

I can see Levine playing that card if there is some internal knowledge about turnout that the campagins are aware of. Whatever the outcome, it plays good for Sanders. He may not win, but he is certainly going to be neck-to-neck with Clinton. Then in NH, where popular vote is indeed revealed, he can CRUSH Clinton and gain momentum for Nevada and even SC.
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
Crab said:
I mean, it is released...


...in August.

But yes, if Sanders loses the delegates by 3% or less, you can be at least reasonably sure he won the popular vote - not that it will be reported that way. Even up to about a 5% loss there's a reasonable probability he was the popular vote winner.

On random digit dialing vs. voter file lists, this is essentially much the same as landline vs. mixed landline/cell. Voter file lists only capture voters with stable addresses and telephone numbers (otherwise there's frequent mismatch), which tends to be older people and people in rural areas; random digit dialling picks up more young people and people in urban areas. So again, it's not really telling us anything we don't know already: if new caucus-goers turn up, Sanders wins, if they don't, he doesn't.

In fact, we have remarkably stability from almost all pollsters about the voting intention of people who have gone to caucus before - it's 54 Clinton, 38 Sanders, or within the MoE of that, in almost all major pollsters now. It's different predictions of new caucus-goer turnout that are accounting for most of the structural difference between pollsters. That's why I really can't wait for the final Selzer, because they're really good at getting that right.
Click to expand...

I wonder why pollsters do not try to make delegate estimates instead of just popular preferences. It would so helpful.

We are getting Selzer´s this Saturday at 5 am. Hold on your butts!
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Melkr_ said:
I wonder why pollsters do not try to make delegate estimates instead of just popular preferences. It would so helpful.
Click to expand...

Too difficult to do well. You'd need to have a representative sample from all 1,681 precincts, or at the very least all 99 counties. That would be expensive as fuuuuuuck and take a long time.

We are getting Selzer´s this Saturday at 5 am. Hold on your butts!
Click to expand...

My butt is held!
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
HylianTom said:
I don't really care for it, both from a democracy perspective and from a data availability perspective.
Click to expand...

From a democracy perspective it could be argued that it is downright detrimental, especially if you have voter breakdown by area. "well, that city is solidly blue and we aint gonna be able to achieve much there, so fuck those guys" (which is exactly what happens down here). From a HORSE RACE!! perspective tho? gimme
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
For what it's worth, I sat down with the demographic break-downs and did the math, and I reckon that Sanders needs just over 36% of the caucus-goers to be first-timers to reliably win the delegate count; which compares to 43% being first-timers in 2008. He doesn't need turnout quite as high as 2008 to win, but not far off - he'll win reliably from about 224,000 upwards. That's still obviously a tough bar to meet, it'd be the second highest attended Iowa caucus of all time, but I don't think the scale of the upset in Iowa would be as impressive as Obama's from a logistical perspective (unless Sanders wins the delegates by a 4% margin or something ridiculous).

EDIT; Definitely makes me appreciate Obama's Iowa upset though, just incredible. Excluding ground game and just looking at the demographic splits, he was less likely to win Iowa in '08 than Sanders is to win in '16. I guess conversely it makes you appreciate how terrible Clinton's campaign was, too.
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
NeoXChaos said:
source?
Click to expand...

I am the source ;)
search Twitter for DMR / Selzer poll, you will find plenty of sources

I am not sure if they will release it at 5 am (like DMR usually does during weekdays to go with their newspaper edition) or later since it s a Saturday.

WHAT!?

JEBMENTUM!?

Right to Rise smear campaign against Rubio working?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
It's Emerson, I wouldn't take it too seriously. They're still using landline-only IVR methods.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
And now we cut to every RNC member on the verge of death:

LAS VEGAS — Near the Las Vegas strip, five women who share a number of qualities sat down for an interview.

The women are all Latina. They’re foreign-born. They’re members of the 53,000-strong Culinary Workers Union Local 226. They work as housekeepers (four of them at Donald Trump’s Las Vegas hotel).

And they’re all in the process of becoming naturalized U.S. citizens.

These women are just five of what labor and immigration activists say are a few of the thousands of Latinos they hope to help naturalize, in pivotal swing states like Nevada, Florida, and Colorado. The reason, they say? Trump made them do it.

“I have realized people have erroneous thoughts about all Latinos, they want to pigeonhole us into things we aren’t like rapists and drug dealers,” said Maria Mendoza, one of the five women, in Spanish. Mendoza was referring to Trump’s now infamous announcement speech, in which he said Mexico was sending rapists and criminals across the border.
Click to expand...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarra...no-vote-has-begun-more-hispanic-us#.xg3qkK7M8

Makai said:
Rudy Giuliani basically endorsed Trump. Compared him to Reagan.
Click to expand...

Chris Christie literally sobbing that he lost out to Trump with regards to 9/11 man. Trump's 9/11 usage >>>> Christie's. Huge upset there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom