Support NeoGAF

[A Human Becoming]

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?

Ask the residents of Flint.

Indeed, state politics do matter: reducing abortion availability, right-to-work, opting out of medicaid expansion, etc.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

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."

No, not at all. It says who will "do more"; it's perfectly possible people who answered that could think Bernie represents change more but would be unable to achieve it (and that's actually pretty probable judging by answers to other questions we've had polls on), making it partially derivative of judgements on pragmatism.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

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?

Then the article is simply wrong. Sanders does point out that there are factors other than money which play a part in the system - see his speech at Liberty Union. That means the entire premise of Chait's argument just doesn't even get started.

 

[Black Mamba]

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.

Okay. As I said in that first post, I expect to be corrected on that and was more or less asking since I don't really care to understand the convoluted process as stupid as a caucus. When you said 3% of delegates, in my head I was thinking 26-24 and that seemed very wrong.

can't wait for the day that we stop having caucuses and stop letting Iowa and NH dictate shit.

 

[disastermouse]

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.

Can his plan to get students back to their home districts have an effect?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Okay. As I said in that first post, I expect to be corrected on that and was more or less asking since I don't really care to understand the convoluted process as stupid as a caucus. When you said 3% of delegates, in my head I was thinking 26-24 and that seemed very wrong.

can't wait for the day that we stop having caucuses and stop letting Iowa and NH dictate shit.

~3% of state delegates would probably cause the national delegates to be split 23-24, or maybe 22-25 with an especially bad distribution (this one is a guess, I haven't actually done the maths for it), so it still has an impact, sadly.

And yes, I agree. The Democratic nomination system is just stupid.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Can his plan to get students back to their home districts have an effect?

No idea. Depends how effectively it's done and how many students participate. Obama didn't have this problem because the caucus was in January last year when all the students were already at home, but DWS decided to move the caucuses a month later this year.

Not that I'm implying anything there.

Not at all.

 

[disastermouse]

Also, this going to sound weird because I support Bernie and won't vote for Clinton, but if she loses because of this email bullshit, I'll be just as angry as the Hillary fans. I want her to lose, but I'll be disappointed if that's what brings her down.

 

[B-Dubs]

Can his plan to get students back to their home districts have an effect?

It depends entirely on the scale. If it's just a handful of buses then it literally does nothing. He'll need a fleet and a way to target his resources. If he sends large numbers of students in highly contested areas home it could tip the odds, if this whole thing is just like 5 buses sent to random areas then it's not nearly enough. I don't think this has been in the works long enough to do what he needs it to do, I could be wrong though and they could have been working this for the last 2 months and getting all the info and resources they need.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Okay. As I said in that first post, I expect to be corrected on that and was more or less asking since I don't really care to understand the convoluted process as stupid as a caucus. When you said 3% of delegates, in my head I was thinking 26-24 and that seemed very wrong.

can't wait for the day that we stop having caucuses and stop letting Iowa and NH dictate shit.

Hard to change that when it's state law. What elected body is ever going to give up attention and importance to their state?

 

[Black Mamba]

No, not at all. It says who will "do more"; it's perfectly possible people who answered that could think Bernie represents change more but would be unable to achieve it (and that's actually pretty probable judging by answers to other questions we've had polls on), making it partially derivative of judgements on pragmatism.

But this undermines your point. Some people agree that Bernie might represent more needed change but those people still support Hillary because they don't think Bernie can achieve it. Thus, she is more pragmatic which explains the discrepancy between change and support.

 

[Black Mamba]

Hard to change that when it's state law. What elected body is ever going to give up attention and importance to their state?

Simple fix.

"Iowa's delegates don't count." - DNC

Done and done.

(they did this with Florida in the past)

 

[Iolo]

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.

I read that article and didn't interpret it to be a 4.91% inbuilt advantage for Hillary; in fact I'm not convinced you read it yourself. Rather it was a way for either to potentially gain up to a 4.91% advantage by optimizing delegate allocation, by peeling off an extra delegate here and there through rounding and O'Malley's (lack of) viability.

Interestingly, the examples given show how Bernie can gain an advantage.

From Bernie's perspective, the ideal starting group size is {5,5}; this grouping ensures the most positive outcome while rendering the size of the other groups moot. The group selection of {5,5} is an offensive tactic that ensures an outcome above that which would be expected based on his local popular support. He had 10 of 19 supporters, just over 52%, while he would win 60% of the delegates.

This 4.91% advantage is a theoretical number which might be approached by a perfect optimization strategy on either side. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed, which was that flooding college precincts exhibits diminishing returns for Bernie.

In reality, I think the delegate allocation vs. popular vote is likely to be moot, and if Sanders does flood the college precincts, turnout will be way up everywhere and he is likely to win.

 

[Holmes]

DWS decided to move the caucuses a month later this year.

Not that I'm implying anything there.

Not at all.

That's just like your opinion, man.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

But this undermines your point. Some people agree that Bernie might represent more needed change but those people still support Hillary because they don't think Bernie can achieve it. Thus, she is more pragmatic which explains the discrepancy between change and support.

Yes, I wasn't arguing it didn't say she was more pragmatic, I was saying that, given the question is probing for a value judgement derivative of pragmatism, it is worrying for Clinton she doesn't have a bigger lead. That is the number one thing she is trying to drive home these primaries (that she can achieve change better). Having only a +7 lead before a caucus she stands reasonable odds of losing is not a strong position to be in.

 

[pigeon]

Hard to change that when it's state law. What elected body is ever going to give up attention and importance to their state?

It's pretty easily changeable. Just declare Super Tuesday or whatever to be the early cutoff for primaries and say anybody who goes earlier loses their delegates. The parties already did this to prevent anybody else from trying to move up to Iowa and NH because it was literally starting to push the NH primary into the previous year. They just gave Iowa and NH exceptions.

I don't know that it will ever change, but it would kind of be nice if it did, because they're really not particularly representative states!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

snip

No, you can get the relevant information. You're right it's talking about a perfect optimization strategy of distribution, but that logically provides the upper bound for a candidate assessed as having a better distribution (on account of the fact you can't do better than optimum). If Clinton's distribution is better, we can say that her boost will be between +0 and +4.91; the exact point being determined by how much better said distribution is. In other words, until August the only way we'll know whether one of the two candidates definitively beat the other is if they exceed +4.91, but we can say it is relatively likely if they exceed, e.g., +3.

EDIT: For what's it's worth, in 2008, Clinton got +2.57 more percentage points of state delegates than she did of the popular vote, so +3 doesn't seem a bad ball park figure for a year in which she probably has an even better relative distribution than she did against Edwards/Obama.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Simple fix.

"Iowa's delegates don't count." - DNC

Done and done.

(they did this with Florida in the past)

It's pretty easily changeable. Just declare Super Tuesday or whatever to be the early cutoff for primaries and say anybody who goes earlier loses their delegates. The parties already did this to prevent anybody else from trying to move up to Iowa and NH because it was literally starting to push the NH primary into the previous year. They just gave Iowa and NH exceptions.

I don't know that it will ever change, but it would kind of be nice if it did, because they're really not particularly representative states!

All true.

What state would best represent the Democratic Party demographics? NH isn't too far off for Republicans, really.

 

[Black Mamba]

Yes, I wasn't arguing it didn't say she was more pragmatic, I was saying that, given the question is probing for a value judgement derivative of pragmatism, it is worrying for Clinton she doesn't have a bigger lead. That is the number one thing she is trying to drive home these primaries (that she can achieve change better). Having only a +7 lead before a caucus she stands reasonable odds of losing is not a strong position to be in.

Well, there's also other issues. Some people might believe Bernie can achieve massive change but they don't want that. So in that case, again, it doesn't hurt Hillary.

Some Dems might prefer being closer to the status quo.

The fact is, though, that Bernie is supposed to be the candidate of "needed change." The fact that he's not even winning that is weird. Even I agree Bernie is more likely to bring "needed change," instead of "realistic change." How is he losing on this question?

Again, my guess is a lot of the voters, minorities, see "needed change" related to things more like immigration and LGBT discrimination, etc, and Bernie isn't seen representing that.

This is a knock on Bernie's message. He can't show himself to be "change" to minorities.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, there's also other issues. Some people might believe Bernie can achieve massive change but they don't want that. So in that case, again, it doesn't hurt Hillary.

Some Dems might prefer being closer to the status quo.

The fact is, though, that Bernie is supposed to be the candidate of "needed change." The fact that he's not even winning that is weird. Even I agree Bernie is more likely to bring "needed change," instead of "realistic change." How is he losing on this question?

Again, my guess is a lot of the voters, minorities, see "needed change" related to things more like immigration and LGBT discrimination, etc, and Bernie isn't seen representing that.

This is a knock on Bernie's message. He can't show himself to be "change" to minorities.

I just simply disagree with your analysis of what the answer to that question means. It says who is likely to do the change. Active word on do. I don't think the difference is that people think Bernie doesn't represent change, I think the difference is that some people don't think he can bring change (particularly older voters).

As for minorities, I think his much larger problem is low profile. I've pointed this out in this thread before, but Bernie doesn't need to win the minority vote to be competitive. He just needs to do better than he is. If he picked up +6 among African American voters, that would be enough to be competitive - the dailykos article I linked to has a really indepth mathematical analysis of why this is the case. Currently, ~26% of African Americans don't know who he is (compared to ~4% of African Americans not knowing who Hillary Clinton is). If Sanders' national profile among African Americans draws level with Clinton's, and even 1 in 5 of those African Americans who don't know who he is decide to vote for him, then he has achieved the swing he needs to be competitive. That's more than plausible.

 

[Black Mamba]

I just simply disagree with your analysis of what the answer to that question means. It says who is likely to do the change. Active word on do. I don't think the difference is that people think Bernie doesn't represent change, I think the difference is that some people don't think he can bring change (particularly older voters).

And again, this is what his entire campaign message is. That he can bring needed change to Washington.

And he's losing that fight so far. he should be winning by a lot.

 

[pigeon]

All true.

What state would best represent the Democratic Party demographics? NH isn't too far off for Republicans, really.

I think for a primary I'd prefer a state that is most representative of American voting demographics. Based on 2012, that's probably Virginia, which went 51-47 just like America did.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I think for a primary I'd prefer a state that is most representative of American voting demographics. Based on 2012, that's probably Virginia, which went 51-47 just like America did.

I think that's about right.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think for a primary I'd prefer a state that is most representative of American voting demographics. Based on 2012, that's probably Virginia, which went 51-47 just like America did.

I'd agree with that. So long as the urban/rural divide is similar to the rest of the country that should work.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think for a primary I'd prefer a state that is most representative of American voting demographics. Based on 2012, that's probably Virginia, which went 51-47 just like America did.

Surely for a primary you want the state that's most representative of Democratic voter demographics? (which is Michigan, incidentally). Alternatively, Pennsylvania, which is demographically very close to the American average, is a swing state in the American presidentials, is a swing state in the Democratic nominations, and is demographically very close to the Democratic average, would be a good compromise option.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

All true.

What state would best represent the Democratic Party demographics? NH isn't too far off for Republicans, really.

New York or New Jersey I think, if we're going by demographics alone.

 

[eBay Huckster]

All true.

What state would best represent the Democratic Party demographics? NH isn't too far off for Republicans, really.

for overall demographics, probably VA, like pigeon said

for Democratic Party demographics, probably Michigan or NY/NJ

e: beaten on both Dem counts

 

[B-Dubs]

New York or New Jersey I think, if we're going by demographics alone.

Jersey is too dickish and New York, as much as I love the idea, is too urban centric. The city and it's suburbs are way too populous and hold way too much of the voting power for it to work.

 

[Drakeon]

I think for a primary I'd prefer a state that is most representative of American voting demographics. Based on 2012, that's probably Virginia, which went 51-47 just like America did.

What about a system where you rotate which states get to go first? Some sort of lottery?

And when you win it, you are no longer allowed to win until the rest of the states get a shot.

I'm pretty fucking tired of California's primary being irrelevant (2008 being a big exception). This year is no different with us voting in June.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What about a system where you rotate which states get to go first? Some sort of lottery?

And when you win it, you are no longer allowed to win until the rest of the states get a shot.

I'm pretty fucking tired of California's primary being irrelevant (2008 being a big exception). This year is no different with us voting in June.

Alternatively, and this might be too radical for some folks...

...hold them all at the same time.

D:

 

[Basileus777]

Surely for a primary you want the state that's most representative of Democratic voter demographics? (which is Michigan, incidentally).

Michigan probably isn't the most representative going forward considering its small Hispanic population.

 

[Black Mamba]

What about a system where you rotate which states get to go first? Some sort of lottery?

And when you win it, you are no longer allowed to win until the rest of the states get a shot.

I'm pretty fucking tired of California's primary being irrelevant (2008 being a big exception). This year is no different with us voting in June.

On the flip side, we're not getting any campaign ads and I am thankful for this.

It's one thing I kind of like, honestly. I mean, even for the GE I think it's kind of ridiculous that states like Va, Ohio, Colorado matter and yet California does not. We should matter. But I'm also glad not to get 100000000 ads every break.

other news: This is gross

 

[B-Dubs]

Alternatively, and this might be too radical for some folks...

...hold them all at the same time.

D:

That would destroy long-shot and single issue candidates.

 

[Coriolanus]

It is nothing like hope and change. Obama did not run on blatant socialist policies that had zero chance of working. He explicitly ran on making the parties work together to get shit done. Naive, yes, but not intentionally misleading. He earnestly tried to do that when in office.

Bernie, on the other hand, is simply full of shit. He is literally promising to give everyone free stuff, relying upon some non-existant "revolution.". He's full of shit and he knows it. He is simply lying to people at this point.

I'm gonna tell you something that you're already aware of to some degree: anything that i could present to you would trigger the backfire effect something fucking fierce.

"free stuff" is exactly what he's promising

Cmon mate, you know that ain't true. Just as bad when people try to push the narrative that bernie sez he can do all of it by himself.

 

[Kyosaiga]

Jersey is too dickish and New York, as much as I love the idea, is too urban centric. The city and it's suburbs are way too populous and hold way too much of the voting power for it to work.

New York City has more people in it than like what 2/3rds of the the rest of the country's states?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Michigan probably isn't the most representative going forward considering its small Hispanic population.

It's the most representative now. It probably won't be quite shortly, I suppose, so true, point taken. Nevada's slightly more minority-oriented than the Democratic average, but not too far away, and is not quite a swing state but close-ish in the presidentials, so it could be a good choice going forward.

 

[PBY]

other news: This is gross

Super gross. Not sure what it says about me that I expected more slurs though.

 

[disastermouse]

And again, this is what his entire campaign message is. That he can bring needed change to Washington.

And he's losing that fight so far. he should be winning by a lot.

Yeah, and I'm going to trip the better runner and then ask why he/she isn't winning. Which is what the DNC has been trying to do since the beginning.

So, kind of a Republican talking point about Obama's inability to get so much of what he wants out of congress.

"Why can't he lead?"

 

[B-Dubs]

New York City has more people in it than like what 2/3rds of the the rest of the country's states?

Yep. Not only that but the city and it's suburbs have like 2/3 or 3/4 or whatever of the entire state's population. NYC is just too powerful politically for the state to work as an early primary, not to mention the high cost of ad time would bury smaller campaigns.

 

[Frank the Great]

People misunderstood me before. I like Bernie's policy proposals. Single payer is great, more progressive taxation is great, regulating wall street is great, money in politics is bad, etc.

I have problems with his character and intelligence. I think he is a liar and is intentionally misleading his supporters regarding what he can accomplish in office. He knows damn well he can't do any of this. His talk of a "revolution" is disingenuous nonsense. There is no possible universe where 2017-2021 America raises taxes on the middle class to play for socialized medicine. It is a blatant nonstarter. His lies make me really dislike him.

If he isn't a liar, he is incredibly stupid. What kind of moron proposes raising taxes on the middle class? I cannot roll my eyes back far enough when I hear comparisons to Obama. Give me a break.

As I get older, I am becoming less and less ideological. I want someone who can win and someone who can get shit done. Hillary is capable as hell and brilliant. I honestly view Bernie as a left-wing version of Cruz. An ideological loon with no friends who cannot accomplish anything and who will damage his own causes. He is a joke who would not poll over 10% if there were a decent roster on the Democratic side, and I cannot wait for this stupid, waste-of-time primary to be over.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That would destroy long-shot and single issue candidates.

I mean, you'd have to change a bunch of other stuff with it or the whole system would fall apart, it's not built for simultaneity. Presumably that would include mechanisms to level the playing field between frontrunners. Other countries manage; see 350-to-1 outsider Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party.

 

[disastermouse]

What about a system where you rotate which states get to go first? Some sort of lottery?

And when you win it, you are no longer allowed to win until the rest of the states get a shot.

I'm pretty fucking tired of California's primary being irrelevant (2008 being a big exception). This year is no different with us voting in June.

Holy shit, I think you just gave all future campaign strategists a colossal head ache/heart attack.

And it cripples the Democratic primary in a way that Republicans would probably never follow.

 

[B-Dubs]

I mean, you'd have to change a bunch of other stuff with it or the whole system would fall apart, it's not built for simultaneity. Presumably that would include mechanisms to level the playing field between frontrunners. Other countries manage.

It would naturally gravitate toward the two front runners, there's no way to stop that from happening. It already happens now, but the spacing between the primaries allow other candidates to gain momentum and potentially enter the conversation.

 

[pigeon]

Surely for a primary you want the state that's most representative of Democratic voter demographics? (which is Michigan, incidentally). Alternatively, Pennsylvania, which is demographically very close to the American average, is a swing state in the American presidentials, is a swing state in the Democratic nominations, and is demographically very close to the Democratic average, would be a good compromise option.

I'm not sure. That was the original question, but I'm kind of like, what is the purpose of a primary? If it's to pick a candidate who can win the general election, then I am more interested in them being acceptable to American demos than Democratic demos.

Obviously some might disagree with my thesis

Alternatively, and this might be too radical for some folks...

...hold them all at the same time.

D:

That would be a great way to capture American demographics, certainly. The question is whether you think the iterative effect of a primary season is a feature or just a side effect.

 

[disastermouse]

Alternatively, and this might be too radical for some folks...

...hold them all at the same time.

D:

No room for momentum/horse race. The media would hate it. Also, would kill smaller contenders by making them compete nation-wide right from the get-go. That would let the DNC dictate the winner even more easily than they already do.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I mean, you'd have to change a bunch of other stuff with it or the whole system would fall apart, it's not built for simultaneity. Presumably that would include mechanisms to level the playing field between frontrunners. Other countries manage; see 350-to-1 outsider Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party.

Other countries don't have a Constitutional ruling that money is speech and as a result, can't be really limited in any way. Things that are common in other countries, like banning polls or ads a week or days before the election, would get shot down in 5 seconds here under 1st amendment grounds.

I mean, the parties would just set the primary election as early in the year as possible to make sure the establishment candidate won.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It would naturally gravitate toward the two front runners, there's no way to stop that from happening. It already happens now, but the spacing between the primaries allow other candidates to gain momentum and potentially enter the conversation.

If that was all you changed, yes. I think there's other stuff you should do; I'd type it all up but it would turn it "Crab dicks on the American constitution for 3,000 words: the post" so I'll save you all on earache.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not sure. That was the original question, but I'm kind of like, what is the purpose of a primary? If it's to pick a candidate who can win the general election, then I am more interested in them being acceptable to American demos than Democratic demos.

Obviously some might disagree with my thesis

Surely it's to represent the desires of Democratic party voters? If the sole goal of elections was to determine who was most electable, you wouldn't even have primaries, if you see what I mean. That might be coloured by my British perspective, though.

 

[PBY]

So after today's Monmouth Iowa poll, Trump is effectively tied w/ Cruz in 538's weighted projections, and crushing Cruz in the polls only forecasts
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

Wondering if skipping the debate is worth it...

 

[noshten]

People misunderstood me before. I like Bernie's policy proposals. Single payer is great, more progressive taxation is great, regulating wall street is great, money in politics is bad, etc.

I have problems with his character and intelligence. I think he is a liar and is intentionally misleading his supporters regarding what he can accomplish in office. He knows damn well he can't do any of this. His talk of a "revolution" is disingenuous nonsense. There is no possible universe where 2017-2021 America raises taxes on the middle class to play for socialized medicine. It is a blatant nonstarter. His lies make me really dislike him.

If he isn't a liar, he is incredibly stupid. What kind of moron proposes raising taxes on the middle class? I cannot roll my eyes back far enough when I hear comparisons to Obama. Give me a break.

As I get older, I am becoming less and less ideological. I want someone who can win and someone who can get shit done. Hillary is capable as hell and brilliant. I honestly view Bernie as a left-wing version of Cruz. An ideological loon with no friends who cannot accomplish anything and who will damage his own causes. He is a joke who would not poll over 10% if there were a decent roster on the Democratic side, and I cannot wait for this stupid, waste-of-time primary to be over.

Right, vague "Hope and Change" was great - but when Bernie does it he is literally a moron. Thank you for the invaluable input I can safely put you on my ignore list when requiring a political perspective. The day realism rules the day is the day I ask you to assume fetal position realizing the World is going to shite if there isn't drastic changes far greater than anything Bernie is proposing.