• 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.
D

dramatis

Member
Elaugaufein said:
Remind me again why these people are supposed to vote for your preferred candidate in the general when you clearly have nothing but contempt for them.
Click to expand...
Remind me again why you think the behavior that Berniebros engage in is not contemptible?

Do you know who my preferred candidate is? Did you ever bother to ask? Or do you make assumptions about me like those fellows who think they know Hillary Clinton so completely and thoroughly that they can discern her personality, her motivations, her feelings, her goals, her everything?

I said I was tired. I am not angry at them, nor contemptuous of them. They're at a point that whether or not they'll vote for Hillary is not up to me, it's up to them. So the likes of those who will be voting for Trump as second choice, the likes of those who refuse to cast a ballot for Hillary, they're not going to be people to court anyway.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Whee! Even have made a delegate projection. I have it as a 64% chance Clinton wins the most delegates in Iowa and a 36% chance Sanders does, just using a weighted normal distribution to estimate distribution effects. That accords with a 65% Clinton 35% Sanders from Betfair, so I'm clearly at least in the right ballpark.

Time to do the Rep side.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
Cheebo said:
That Microsoft election prediction thread is a hilarious mess. Every time a thread is made in the OT that shows Hillary winning some Bernie-stans show up to proclaim Trump is the next best option if Bernie loses.
Click to expand...

It's always the same one or two people. Not sure why you are surprised. Just like I'm not surprised that in every Bernie Sanders thread to see the same one or two people make a cheeky comment. Even on that first page of that thread you have concern trolling and "sensible chuckle".

Both sides have an obvious persecution complex at times.
 
C

CCS

Banned
Crab said:
Whee! Even have made a delegate projection. I have it as a 64% chance Clinton wins the most delegates in Iowa and a 36% chance Sanders does, just using a weighted normal distribution to estimate distribution effects. That accords with a 65% Clinton 35% Sanders from Betfair, so I'm clearly at least in the right ballpark.

Time to do the Rep side.
Click to expand...

I was about to shout at you and then I realised you said weighted. This level of reading incomprehension is why I hate stats lectures :p
 
I

Iolo

Member
Iolo said:
I think this is a dangerous game to play. You've now moved the goalposts such that anything less than a 5-10% margin in Hillary's favor is tainted. While we're at it, let's add voter fraud and miscounted votes as a reason to discount any Hillary victory as legitimate. Is this the road Bern supporters want to go down?
Click to expand...

Crab said:
I'm just saying something that is true. I can literally go back and quote at least ten Hillary supporters in this thread who have said Clinton will win in Iowa because her distribution means she can get a higher delegate count per person. It is a logical consequence of that that Clinton can win more delegates yet lose the popular vote. You can deny neither of those statements or both, but not only one.

I don't think voter fraud or miscounted votes will have much if any impact. Caucuses are pretty close to fraud immune because of the in-person non-secret nature of the voting and miscount of preference groups are unlikely to make much of a difference at any individual precinct because of the way delegates are allocated and therefore no difference overall even if the sum of the miscounts is quite large.

No Sanders bias in either of the two paragraphs above, just facts.
Click to expand...

Quoting exchange again in light of the Sanders campaign's aides' allegations that Microsoft may be abetting vote fraud in Iowa. The original point being that a 5% victory by Hillary may be regarded as illegitimate (because of delegate math) and maybe another 5% because of possible voter fraud, a theory now being encouraged by the campaign itself; so Hillary needs a 10%+ margin to "really" win.

This is not a good road to be on.
 
R

rjinaz

Member
I guess some of the veteran organizations aren't too happy with Trump right now. They see it as Trump using them for political gain.

I kind of had the same thoughts when this first happened honestly.
 
P

PBY

Banned
We did it fam

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

Trump has overtaken Cruz in 538's weighted projections
anigif_enhanced-buzz-19477-1438201991-8.gif
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Iolo said:
Quoting exchange again in light of the Sanders campaign's aides' allegations that Microsoft may be abetting vote fraud in Iowa. The original point being that a 5% victory by Hillary may be regarded as illegitimate (because of delegate math) and maybe another 5% because of possible voter fraud, a theory now being encouraged by the campaign itself; so Hillary needs a 10%+ margin to "really" win.

This is not a good road to be on.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the official campaign on everything. I don't agree with Sandes on everything. We'll find out if Clinton really won in August; I don't really care insofar as that I only care about the media reporting and the media won't report the popular vote. Legitimacy is all fine and good, but it won't win elections.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
dramatis said:
Remind me again why you think the behavior that Berniebros engage in is not contemptible?

Do you know who my preferred candidate is? Did you ever bother to ask? Or do you make assumptions about me like those fellows who think they know Hillary Clinton so completely and thoroughly that they can discern her personality, her motivations, her feelings, her goals, her everything?

I said I was tired. I am not angry at them, nor contemptuous of them. They're at a point that whether or not they'll vote for Hillary is not up to me, it's up to them. So the likes of those who will be voting for Trump as second choice, the likes of those who refuse to cast a ballot for Hillary, they're not going to be people to court anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what a Berniebro is. Though I suspect it's the same thing as a brogressive. If winning the general election is the only thing that matters, which is generally the argument put forward for nominating Clinton, that she has the best shot in the general, then It doesn't matter whether they are contemptible or not, the only thing that matters is if you can get them to vote Democratic,

No, I don't know who your preferred candidate. I made an assumption based on your post. It may or may not be true and I'm happy enough to be corrected if its wrong. I certainly have no idea of your motivations, or goals or the innermost secrets of your being.

It's still months away from the general election, that's plenty of time for people to change their minds based on reasonable persuasion. Isn't that the point of the losing primary candidate endorsing the winner ? To persuade their supporters to vote for someone that isn't their first choice in the general.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Crab said:
I don't agree with the official campaign on everything. I don't agree with Sandes on everything. We'll find out if Clinton really won in August; I don't really care insofar as that I only care about the media reporting and the media won't report the popular vote. Legitimacy is all fine and good, but it won't win elections.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're on this road, personally. But the campaign is paving it.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Iolo said:
Quoting exchange again in light of the Sanders campaign's aides' allegations that Microsoft may be abetting vote fraud in Iowa. The original point being that a 5% victory by Hillary may be regarded as illegitimate (because of delegate math) and maybe another 5% because of possible voter fraud, a theory now being encouraged by the campaign itself; so Hillary needs a 10%+ margin to "really" win.

This is not a good road to be on.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's kind of inevitable. Jonathan Bernstein had an article recently about how "winning" Iowa isn't a question of getting more votes, but beating your expectations. One way to do that is to push down your expectations. Another way is to try to raise the expectations for your rival. So not too surprising that this might come up given that it's looking pretty close between Sanders and Clinton right now.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
So how are O'Malley delegates going to shake out? If they go for Bernie then Hillary can effectively cut out Martin from a position in her cabinet. Or she can promise him a good secretary level position if they shake out for her. If they go for Bernie, their likely second choice, then he's sending a clear message.

I don't even know if Martin even has control over this.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
RustyNails said:
So how are O'Malley delegates going to shake out? If they go for Bernie then Hillary can effectively cut out Martin from a position in her cabinet. Or she can promise him a good secretary level position if they shake out for her. If they go for Bernie, their likely second choice, then he's sending a clear message.

I don't even know if Martin even has control over this.
Click to expand...

Both YouGOV and PPP both agree they split 2-1 for Sanders, which is quite unusual because both of them have very different methodologies. Helps that it's such a small population, I guess, even small samples are accurate.

That doesn't make much difference overall. If O'Malley gets 3%, that's +1% for Sanders, if he gets +4.5%, then +1.5% for Sanders, if he gets 6%, then +2% for Sanders. He's not getting more than 6%.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Crab said:
Both YouGOV and PPP both agree they split 2-1 for Sanders, which is quite unusual because both of them have very different methodologies. Helps that it's such a small population, I guess, even small samples are accurate.

That doesn't make much difference overall. If O'Malley gets 3%, that's +1% for Sanders, if he gets +4.5%, then +1.5% for Sanders, if he gets 6%, then +2% for Sanders. He's not getting more than 6%.
Click to expand...
Crab put that Ti-83 away and think politics for a moment. WWFUD. What would Frank Underwood do?
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
RustyNails said:
So how are O'Malley delegates going to shake out? If they go for Bernie then Hillary can effectively cut out Martin from a position in her cabinet. Or she can promise him a good secretary level position if they shake out for her. If they go for Bernie, their likely second choice, then he's sending a clear message.

I don't even know if Martin even has control over this.
Click to expand...

He can't control it. Not without admitting he has no chance, since that's the only reason why he'd be telling his caucusers who else to vote for.

I'm not even sure he could control it, if he did implicitly or explicitly endorse a candidate. Making that choice is a relatively heavy political statement which could cause supporters to reevaluate if they really supported him.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
dramatis said:
Remind me again why you think the behavior that Berniebros engage in is not contemptible?

Do you know who my preferred candidate is? Did you ever bother to ask? Or do you make assumptions about me like those fellows who think they know Hillary Clinton so completely and thoroughly that they can discern her personality, her motivations, her feelings, her goals, her everything?

I said I was tired. I am not angry at them, nor contemptuous of them. They're at a point that whether or not they'll vote for Hillary is not up to me, it's up to them. So the likes of those who will be voting for Trump as second choice, the likes of those who refuse to cast a ballot for Hillary, they're not going to be people to court anyway.
Click to expand...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=193551977&postcount=94
 
T

thefro

Member
Elaugaufein said:
He can't control it. Not without admitting he has no chance, since that's the only reason why he'd be telling his caucusers who else to vote for.

I'm not even sure he could control it, if he did implicitly or explicitly endorse a candidate. Making that choice is a relatively heavy political statement which could cause supporters to reevaluate if they really supported him.
Click to expand...

In the past campaigns have made deals to where each campaign would work with each other to maximize their delegates.

So for instance, in one precinct maybe there's just a few O'Malley people and he's not viable, so his people go to Sanders to give push him over the top to get another delegate, but in another precinct maybe if a few Sanders people caucus for O'Malley, he'll be viable and take a delegate from Hillary, but Sanders won't lose any delegates.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
thefro said:
In the past campaigns have made deals to where each campaign would work with each other to maximize their delegates.

So for instance, in one precinct maybe there's just a few O'Malley people and he's not viable, so his people go to Sanders to give push him over the top to get another delegate, but in another precinct maybe if a few Sanders people caucus for O'Malley, he'll be viable and take a delegate from Hillary, but Sanders won't lose any delegates.
Click to expand...

But O'Malley specifically avoided endorsing either of the other candidates at the last town hall, so it seems unlikely he'd be doing that. Unless he tries to maximise his share by playing the other two against each other but given that his support base is pretty much the margin of error I can't see that working out well for him.

Which isn't to say that local groups who supprt people won't make those kind of deals while giving the campaign itself plausible deniability.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
thefro said:
In the past campaigns have made deals to where each campaign would work with each other to maximize their delegates.

So for instance, in one precinct maybe there's just a few O'Malley people and he's not viable, so his people go to Sanders to give push him over the top to get another delegate, but in another precinct maybe if a few Sanders people caucus for O'Malley, he'll be viable and take a delegate from Hillary, but Sanders won't lose any delegates.
Click to expand...

There's actually a formula you can use to work out whether it's better to support a non-viable group or not; Obama's campaign taught their precinct captains how to do it. Can't remember what it is off the top of my head, could probably work it out.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I'd feel bad for huckabee and his Snes era production values but he's the worst so I'll move on. Enjoy Kim Davis.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
CCS said:
I don't know what you mean, this seems perfectly reasonable. After all, no one in the last 100 years has ever tried to do either of these things. I don't know why, it seems like such a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

By this argument Obamacare shouldn't have happened. Hillary Clinton tried to fix the problem in the 90s and failed , so obviously Obama shouldn't have tried.
 
C

CCS

Banned
Elaugaufein said:
By this argument Obamacare shouldn't have happened. Hillary Clinton tried to fix the problem in the 90s and failed , so obviously Obama shouldn't have tried.
Click to expand...

One is trying to pass a measure through government, the other is trying to make a large scale behavioural change in the entire electorate. I too enjoy comparing entirely unrelated things!
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Sea Manky said:
Revolutions just aren't what they used to be.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that he should be calling for a violent overthrow of the system and placing the means of production into the hands of the workers ?

Seems like Sanders can't win. If he doesn't explain how he pays for things, it's all about that, if he does its all about how could he even consider saying that he'd raise taxes.

His proposals are super radical except when they aren't radical enough.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Holmes said:
IA Monmouth

Clinton - 47%
Sanders - 42%
O'Malley - 6%

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/f94fe349-47c3-4af3-86b9-5f50e362d1ec.pdf
Click to expand...

Should probably specify University, not College, as they both do polls.

For what it's worth, they predict turnout at 110,000, which is the lowest I've seen from any pollster bar Loras. Thankfully, they've also modelled for other turnouts:

Increasing the model to a turnout of approximately 150,000 voters – which
would be the second highest turnout on record – would narrow Clinton’s lead over Sanders to a 46% to 43% margin, with O’Malley’s support at 5%. Pushing turnout to 200,000 would leave the race virtually tied at 45% for Clinton and 44% for Sanders.
Click to expand...
 
H

Holmes

Member
I specified that it was Monmouth University.

This letter from a 103 year old voter is pretty cute. No matter who they support, people like that have really seen more progress and world changing events than any other generation in history and that's really interesting.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
2009-2010 Obama: Got a ton of great, progressive shit passed.

Dems are discouraged and stay home in 2010 midterms.

1. Bernie Sanders gets elected
2. Bernie Sanders gets none of his agenda done since Paul fucking Ryan is the Speaker of the House.
3. ???
4. Dems somehow don't get discouraged and there's a political revolution in the 2018 midterms!
 
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