RustyNails
Member
Wow what a great platform. Vote for me! There is no way for any of my ideas to be implemented!
-
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
VendettaRed07
Member
I agree with this. Bernie isn't promising free stuff. That narrative needs to be dropped.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...s-The-Current-State-of-the-Democratic-Primary
This is actually a really good piece of analysis of the numbers behind the Dem race and I encourage everyone to read it (dailykos, I know, but it's a genuinely good article). Basically all data, no punditry, and I fucking love how they use a least resistance model and not uniform swing. Explains all the critical stuff - Nevada is the key state, not SC; what demographics Clinton needs to protect most and Sanders needs to win over most; etc.
The Dem primary most-swingy state is Michigan. Nevada is somewhat Clinton-favourable, but not particularly strongly so. Iowa and Nevada are the two key states. If Sanders loses Iowa, he's out of the race. If he wins Nevada, he's the front-runner. If he edges Iowa and Clinton edges Nevada, we have a fight on our hands. In South Carolina, Sanders need to lose by less than 19% to stay in it, and 15% means he's doing well enough to win.
This is actually a really good piece of analysis of the numbers behind the Dem race and I encourage everyone to read it (dailykos, I know, but it's a genuinely good article). Basically all data, no punditry, and I fucking love how they use a least resistance model and not uniform swing. Explains all the critical stuff - Nevada is the key state, not SC; what demographics Clinton needs to protect most and Sanders needs to win over most; etc.
The Dem primary most-swingy state is Michigan. Nevada is somewhat Clinton-favourable, but not particularly strongly so. Iowa and Nevada are the two key states. If Sanders loses Iowa, he's out of the race. If he wins Nevada, he's the front-runner. If he edges Iowa and Clinton edges Nevada, we have a fight on our hands. In South Carolina, Sanders need to lose by less than 19% to stay in it, and 15% means he's doing well enough to win.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
The anti-bernie crowd can run with this narrative or the "he's promising free stuff!" Narrative, but using these two arguments at the same time cancel each other out. It's really coming across as malicious more than well-reasoned debate at this point.
Edit- to be clear, I don't think Sanders is infallible nor do I think Hillary is awful. I just think this forum is valuable because we discuss things a few levels higher than what's found in YouTube comments and it'd be nice to keep that quality of discussion.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
The billboard and highway yard signs are working here!
ugaboga232
Member
How will clinton do more than sanders assuming they both have the same republican congress? Both are hated a lot, both won't get shit done. You could argue clinton's foreign policy experience (and its a good point) but domestically both seem in the same boat.
Can we just admit we all have biases and stop trying to rationalize our view backwards? Lets just have fun with the polls, wait for actual data, and make fun of trump and cruz.
Can we just admit we all have biases and stop trying to rationalize our view backwards? Lets just have fun with the polls, wait for actual data, and make fun of trump and cruz.
disastermouse
Banned
Can I just say...you are all evil geniuses.
Team Alucard
Banned
RCP average and HuffPo both show that Iowa is about as close as possible.
I'm definitely caucusing on monday.
I'm definitely caucusing on monday.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Will be interesting to see what effect this has, if any. In some of the more rural areas I'd imagine it could come down to just a couple votes making the difference.
RustyNails
Member
How are those two things mutually exclusive. Promising something free (technically it isn't because we will theoretically increase revenue") when those things have no chance of passing the chambers is not contrarian.
disastermouse
Banned
That's what I'm thinking, too. I think the idea is to get enough of an edge in enough small districts to eek out a win and diffuse his overwhelming lead from the big cities/college towns to areas where his supporters can have maximum effect.
I think it's brilliant.
There needs to be a distinction made:
Some have quibbles with policy positions.
Others have quibbles with how a politician claims he/she will attempt to achieve such policies.
It's entirely possible that a voter can largely agree with a candidate's stated policy goals, find them inspiring/admirable/ideal, etc.. while also maintaining a level of skepticism towards how those goals should be approached.
Some have quibbles with policy positions.
Others have quibbles with how a politician claims he/she will attempt to achieve such policies.
It's entirely possible that a voter can largely agree with a candidate's stated policy goals, find them inspiring/admirable/ideal, etc.. while also maintaining a level of skepticism towards how those goals should be approached.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
The basis of one argument is that Bernie's pie-in-the-sky free-stuff-for-everyone agenda is not grounded in reality, and the basis of your argument is that what he's said is too grounded in reality. From where I'm sitting, it's one or the other. Either he's being honest about how difficult this is, or he's promising everyone a golden goose.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Just quoting this again for the next page because genuinely all bias aside it's a great read for data-addicts.
disastermouse
Banned
I guess? If he fails, it'll be about the same as what Hillary would/could do, so what does it matter? Except, Bernie voters feel confident that Bernie wouldn't fail for lack of trying - whereas |-|>illary ain't even gonna try.
RustyNails
Member
It's both: he is promising everyone a golden goose in his stump, while admitting that golden goose is not happening outside the stump. So like others said, he's cynically selling people unachievable things.
Nothing is passing the chambers. The Republicans don't want the government to function, much less actually help people.
Doesn't mean we have to ignore everything we believe in or discard it.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
That advertismenet was so sad. Of all the people running he seems to be the one who can solve the problems.
Yoda
Member
I'd agree if you said something alone the lines "Bernie's ideas have a <adjective> low chance of actually coming to fruition". But calling him him dishonest is, well dishonest. Hillary (like 90% of politicians, including Obama) don't let their morals and principles guide them in all of their political decisions; instead they comprised their principles in hopes of getting elected, and maintaining their position. (see her stance on LBGT equality for example). Bernie was pro LBGT when it was an overwhelming negative to be so; to phrase that another way, he supported something he knew he'd get no "points" for and to a pragmatist had no reality of forwarding the agenda, despite this, he wouldn't sweep in injustice under the rug because it was convenient. Such authenticity is extremely rare in our political system (he isn't 100% pure, but he is close), but it signals to voters that when TPP, or more tax loopholes for crony capitalism come across his desk in the oval office, his first instinct won't be to ask his political advisor to weight the pros and cons of accepting the legislation... he will stick to his guns and say no.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Idunno, I went to see Sanders in LA back in August, I believe it was, and I seem to recall him stressing the difficulty in reaching these goals. I don't really see how else he should convey his platform if not by saying "I want to do big things, but I understand this will be difficult." I mean, it just seems like an honest assessment of the situation to me. In what way would you prefer he frame his agenda?
Just yesterday this thread was mocking his tax plan, and now it's "free stuff"? You can't really have both.
He's proposed paying for the "stuff" with fairly massive tax increases, and I don't think he has ever shied away from that.
Arguing that it's unrealistic is more reasonable, but anyone claiming that Hillary is in a better position to reach across the aisle and achieve progressive goals is full of shit. Republicans have been setting her up as the antichrist for decades now, we are going to be nostalgic for the way they treated Obama once she's elected.
He's proposed paying for the "stuff" with fairly massive tax increases, and I don't think he has ever shied away from that.
Arguing that it's unrealistic is more reasonable, but anyone claiming that Hillary is in a better position to reach across the aisle and achieve progressive goals is full of shit. Republicans have been setting her up as the antichrist for decades now, we are going to be nostalgic for the way they treated Obama once she's elected.
Yeah, you don't constantly go on about "political revolution" and populist appeal if you don't believe you need those things in the first place. Bernie has always been upfront that it's going to be hard, but not impossible as long as the people stay energized and contribute.
One great way of keeping people energized is not running away from progressive policies that a majority actually support. See the 2014 midterms for what happens when you do.
It's just one person, not the whole thread.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
if only this sentiment was applied by Clinton fans to Bernie fans...
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You're actually Donald Trump posing as NeoGAF moderator, aren't you, Y2kev.
I'm on to you, don't think I'm not.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'll be voting for Hillary, but some of her supporters in here have gone off the deep end.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Trump, Cruz, or stumpakow?
You summoned him. He'll be here soon.
Black Mamba
Member
I don't know how a pollster can do that. Their sample sizes are way too small for each county/precinct and to make them significant would require oodles of money and time spent.
They're hamstrung by the size of the electorate in Iowa to simply do popular vote.
Also, Crabz, I don't know how you can say if Bernie loses by 3% of the delegates it means he won the popular vote. This is mathematically impossible without knowing at least what precincts each won and how many turned out and even then it's still just a guess. And aren't there like 50 delegates (this one I don't know so someone has to correct me)? So using the percentage difference of delegates seems spurious.
In other news, a GOP camp's internal poll also has Jeb! 3rd in NH and Rubio 5th. Which one, I don't know. But that at least shows a few polls with Jeb! rising and Rubio dropping.
Also, if Fox caves to Trump, then Trump wins Iowa and probably the entire thing. Fox, if their goal is not-trump, cannot cave no matter what. Short term might cost money, but oh well. And the ratings, election wise, don't matter nationally. It only matters in Iowa.
Well you have a wrong idea about what I personally think about the value of presidential elections in terms of policy implementation. What I've been stating all along, is that electing Sanders would not ensure his policies or platform gets implemented. It simply shifts the focus onto his platform, with the party finally moving to where it was pre-Reagan.
That means that the focus is shifted towards a more progressive tax code, moving the health care conversation towards single payer, finally tackling the crippling policies that ensure younger people are under huge financial strain, finally at a national level tackling the fact that minimum wages have barely budged when adjusted for inflation.
If people choose to be more involved in midterm elections and there are candidates that carry this message than that would play better into his chances of implementing certain policies. Otherwise it pretty much ensures that at the very least these topics are at the top of the electorates mind. I do feel that as time passes us by and more and more jobs are lost overseas or to automation there would be more people that would demand certain safety nets be expanded by the government who will hopefully get involved with the political process.
Eight months ago Sanders barely had a campaign, downplaying the amount of work volunteers have done is shortsighted. There are unprecedented new ways to get organized that can turn the tide, provided that we get big money out of politics or at least limit the extend they are able to move the focus of the debate. Right now pumping money into the Tea Party has enabled gridlock but I believe a lot of the organizational capacity on a smaller scale would be changed once CU is overturned, allowing a better chance for candidates that aren't being fully financed by outside interests. I find people lamenting the last 2 midterm elections while not viewing the full extend of the power of million dollars being pumped into these races is foolish and it appears to be hand waved by people on these boards. The fact that millions can spend in attack ads is detrimental to a lot of progressive candidates who'd never receive the backing of different lobby groups or big corporate donors. While decent enough politicians need to play the "game" of appeasing these outside interests just so they don't get slaughtered.
disastermouse
Banned
Any further thoughts about the 'Go Home For Bernie' effort? Has this been done before and was it successful?
It's good on paper but we'll just have to see how it goes, I guess. I dunno if it's been done before but a lot of these students have class at night and the next morning (Tuesday) so that might stop some from returning home for one evening. Or maybe they just won't go to class the next morning. Hard to say.
Black Mamba
Member
LOL. Basically people are thinking "Bernie won't get anything done because he's too radical, Hillary can do something"
Or maybe it's that minorities believe* Bernie doesn't care about their issues and believe Hillary will push for them. One reason I thought that America ad by Bernie wasn't so good, nationally.
Note I'm speculating on what others may believe, not myself.
Parents could also say "lol, no, you're staying in school and not coming home."
Also, isn't it undemocratic for these students to not caucus where they currently reside? Cheating, IMO. No surprise from Bernie, though. He's been cheating the system from the get go. Not even a real democrat!
So got a question for PoliGAF. Does the fact that the GOP controls a lot of state governments and Governorships mean anything long term? Basically what I am asking is the batshit crazy national politics in anyway analogous to state politics across the country and should the Dems try to switch this around in the years to come? Or should they not really bother as it's not that big a deal?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm talking precinct delegates, not national delegates - remember that the caucus voters vote in is actually only the first stage of the caucus that elects ~17,000 precinct delegates who then elect ~2,500 state delegates and ~2,500 county delegates who then elect ~27 district delegates who then elect the 45 delegates who go the DNC.
We can roughly quantify Clinton's inbuilt advantage; there was an article that I've linked to in this thread that put it at 4.91%. Even if we're conservative and say her advantage is smaller than thought, it would be surprising if it was less than 3% - hence why I suggested 3%.
We'll know for sure in August either way, but it is a reasonable metric to go by.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
49-42 is actually... pretty damn close. Like, I would have guessed the figure was much lower. If Clinton's supposed greatest campaign strength is she's the pragmatic candidate, and she's only convinced 7% more people than Sanders has that she is more pragmatic than he is, that's... really not good for her.
When I was in college there weren't too many students that interested in the primaries. It will be interesting to see if it works. I also don't know how many states split their delegates by county for it to matter.
Black Mamba
Member
Oh okay. Are all 17k delegates posted now or August? I'll agree if all 17k are known, then you could probably do an educated statistical guess.
But if all we know are the 45 delegates and the total turnout, then we won't know shit.
It's not a question of who is more pragmatic. It's a question of who represents "change." That is bad for Bernie, not Hillary. Hillary is supposed to be the "status quo."
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That's not what chait is saying. He's saying everything for sanders is due to corporate interests. And his solutions revolve around and depend on that.
What chait is saying isn't that it's not good to tackle that but many of the problems sanders describes aren't a result of that and thus his proposed solutions won't change these problems. He's ignorant of other causes and hasn't grappled with that and his theory of change and policies actively ignores that and the many realities of American politics.
And chait points out sanders is oblivious to this. Why should we elect someone who can't seem to grasp how politics is done today?
You can spin it either way. You can also say that now with all of the attention Sanders has been getting in the national media, he still hasn't believed more people that he'll be the true agent of change, despite his constant claims that Clinton is establishment, can't bring change, is what's wrong, etc etc. And that's... really not good for him this close to when voting begins.
Ask the residents of Flint.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
We get the ~17,000. More precisely, we get the projection of what the ~2,500 will be based on the ~17,000; but the second stage is more or less a direct vote so it maps very accurately to the ~17,000.
hence why we can indeed do an educated statistical guess about Clinton's rural advantage. Trust me, I'm not happy about it. 4.91% is huge. Right now, I reckon Sanders is probably the slight favourite to win the popular vote, but delegates just seems so much less likely; doesn't exactly fill me with joy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked