Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Prior to Saint Reagan saving America, women made 60% of what men made. At the end of his glorious rule, they made 72%.

Hmm, going to look into why there was such a huge leap in the 80s.

 

[disastermouse]

Prior to Saint Reagan saving America, women made 60% of what men made. At the end of his glorious rule, they made 72%.

Hmm, going to look into why there was such a huge leap in the 80s.

I think that in the 80s, two-income middle class families became the norm, so more women were working full-time.

 

[benjipwns]

Prior to Saint Reagan saving America, women made 60% of what men made. At the end of his glorious rule, they made 72%.

Hmm, going to look into why there was such a huge leap in the 80s.

shoulder pads

 

[neurosisxeno]

I think that in the 80s, two-income middle class families became the norm, so more women were working full-time.

Exactly. During the 60's and 70's the transition happened, and children were raised accustomed to the idea that they too could go to college and have careers.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Really though, it was a massive jump compared to everything before and after:

 

[JesseEwiak]

Prior to Saint Reagan saving America, women made 60% of what men made. At the end of his glorious rule, they made 72%.

Hmm, going to look into why there was such a huge leap in the 80s.

I don't think it's actually that complicated - at the beginning of the 80's, a woman who was ten years into her career had started in 1970. Not exactly the best time.

OTOH, by time it's 1988, you not only have all those women actually advancing in their career instead of quitting to raise babies, you also have a ton of women entering the midpoint of their careers after starting in the late 70's, which wasn't exactly perfect, but was a massive ton better for women - I think people who have seen frankly, society not change all that much between 2000 and 2015 in the macro sense aside from gay rights underestimate how much the entire world changed from the time JFK was shot 'til Reagan was inaugurated. It was really two different America's.

 

[benjipwns]

Look at when it goes flat.

1992 LA Times:

Slouching Into the '90s : Say goodby to power suits and shoulder pads.

"The '80s was Nancy Reagan and 'Dynasty,' huge shoulders, nasty little suits, dress for success, hard-edge, hard-core, mean, aggressive clothes," said designer Marc Jacobs after his recent New York show.

His collection for Perry Ellis was a daring display of the emerging new look. Inspired by the Seattle sound in music, and a nostalgia for the age of Aquarius, Jacobs created multilayered, disheveled outfits: sheer floral dresses under plaid shirts, accessorized with knit caps, crop tops and mini-shorts. All of it was mismatched. But each itemqualifies as a safe, long-term investment.

"Let's be a little softer, a little gentler now," Jacobs suggested.

shoulder pads

 

[benjipwns]

just realized that LA Times headline spelled it "goodby"

 

[vicissitudes]

Bernie got basically 50% and Cruz-Trump-Carson-Paul combined for 66% of the vote. Bernie could even Hillary on prospective national delegates and the GOP Four went 21-6 against everyone else.

Not exactly roses for "the establishment" of either party.

That's true. I feel better. Just not looking forward to a week's worth of headlines like "Rubio surge" and "Bernie loses."

 

[Jack The Nipper]

For those of us that dont really go after this thing. Who are the true main runners for president. As in, who will be the ones in the top 3? And what makes them different in their camps? a simple and nice explanation? I barely know what a republican or democrat is honestly

Also what are each main runners biggest promises for their campaign? And what are their biggest controversial things?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, it (probably) wasn't a win, barring Sanders taking the remaining delegates 7-3 or more, but it was enough to keep him in the race and hopefully give him a boost in the polls. Gotta carry that through to NH. Nevada will then tell us what we need to know. All in all, not too shabby.

 

[benjipwns]

I think the media will make a bigger deal out of Hillary not stomping Sanders, if only because they love the horserace. Especially with Bernie looking like he's a likely NH win.

Rubio's surge is pretty legitimate for a narrative, he was at 11% in Iowa a week ago. It seems like that last third of the GOP is settling on a candidate finally.

 

[shinra-bansho]

He was always going to stay in the race, like unless it was a ridiculous blowout. Because he's going to win NH.

Super Tuesday, and to a lesser extent SC and Nevada are the litmus tests of whether this is going anywhere.

My thoughts are still that it isn't.

 

[benjipwns]

For those of us that dont really go after this thing. Who are the true main runners for president. As in, who will be the ones in the top 3? And what makes them different in their camps? a simple and nice explanation? I barely know what a republican or democrat is honestly

Basically the same as you see in tonight's results really.

Hillary (66%) and Sanders (33%) in the Democrats.

Trump (35%), Cruz (35%), and Rubio (30%) in the Republicans.

Hillary is pro-Wall Street, pro-felonies, pro-murdering innocents for pleasure, pro-corporatist, etc.
Sanders is anti-Wall Street, pro-democracy, pro-peace, pro-socialism, etc.

Cruz is essentially distilled Tea Party.
Trump is running on basically the xenophobic strain in American politics. And this has crossover value ala Perot, Reagan Democrats, etc.
Rubio is a more typical conservative candidate ala W. Bush. His shifts on immigration, social issues, etc. are more to do with the state of the race probably.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't know what a C-SPAN user video is or if this is legitimate. I'm at work, so I can't even watch. Polk county vote fraud allegation for Hillary.

Normal Iowa Caucus stuff? Forgive me if this is bullshit.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus

It's a user video, there's literally no journalistic oversight when it comes to anything about it. Unless a real source confirms the title consider it crap.

I'm pretty sure C-SPAN user videos are just clips selected by users from longer videos posted by C-SPAN itself. If memory serves, the title and description of the clips are also provided by the user. But the source for the clip disastermouse posted is this video.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Basically the same as you see in tonight's results really.

Hillary (66%) and Sanders (33%) in the Democrats.

Trump (35%), Cruz (35%), and Rubio (30%) in the Republicans.

Hillary is pro-Wall Street, pro-felonies, pro-murdering innocents for pleasure, pro-corporatist, etc.
Sanders is anti-Wall Street, pro-democracy, pro-peace, pro-socialism, etc.

Cruz is essentially distilled Tea Party.
Trump is running on basically the xenophobic strain in American politics. And this has crossover value ala Perot, Reagan Democrats, etc.
Rubio is a more typical conservative candidate ala W. Bush. His shifts on immigration, social issues, etc. are more to do with the state of the race probably.

Thanks, we are making something that deals with the canadates (including obama) Not to say that the popular guys aren't needed but of course the more controversial and popular they are in media is more helpful for the product. Just trying to do some research and this is helpful.

Anyone else have anything else to add? I am going through some of the thread as well. Appreciate it man

In our product we will use the three main three or four guys as mains. We may use a couple of the other guys as a part of our product but won't make more than a few hints. So which actual people should I use? If there are any funny names or ideas from unknowns that is possible too!

So far we are using Trump, Hill and Obama for sure. I am already planning to use Cruz as a side character. Not sure if we will use past presidents or not though.

 

[User 463088]

So, you want to know what I'm pissed about? It ain't Bernie, surprisingly.

It is whoever in the Clinton camp made that statement to Andrea Mitchell that Hillary had "won." I don't care if it was a low level staffer or if it came from Queen YAASSSSS herself. Shit like that pisses me off. It shits on the work of people on both sides who worked to get out the vote. You get to claim victory when you actually effing win, not a minute before that. The optics of that were ludicrous. MSNBC was running with it like it was a gosh darn award winning pie or something. If your campaign has the air of being....I don't want to say questionable, but some people still remember some of the stupid shit you pulled in 2008, don't feed the damn fire! You know a tie is going to be spun by the media as a Bernie victory, and any win you get, at that point, is so inconsequential it doesn't matter, so don't freaking shoot yourself in the foot! Ugh.

A tie is fine. Whatever. Bernie needed to get more delegates out of Iowa unless he can drastically change the narrative going into NV, SC and Super Tuesday. So a good night for him. I was happy to see he actually managed to get his people out there. He did that in the face of a better, more experienced ground game. I want to look at trends from other states that aren't NH before I start to worry. I'm not happy with the estimates of Dem turnout, though. A Bernie tie SHOULD have had a higher turnout, and I know it's just estimates but still.

Also, what is it with our stupid party and an inability to freaking do something simply? Get rid of this shit and go to a primary. I don't care that it's tradition. It's ludicrous that we allow this to be the first steps of Democracy in an election year.

I'm also not pleased about Rubio doing as well as he did.

And finally, and this may shock a lot of people, but I may have been happier if there was someone else in the race other than Bernie. If I am completely off base on where the party is in relation to Clinton, then we're basically going to go down a path where we'll elect someone by the skin of their teeth (i.e. Clinton) or we elect someone that I still don't believe is electable in a GE campaign. Like I said, I still support Clinton, and I will until the bitter end, one way or the other, but i want to see some more data points to see if I need to re-evaluate where the party is in relation to my support.

That's called pragmatism, btw.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

He was always going to stay in the race, like unless it was a ridiculous blowout. Because he's going to win NH.

Super Tuesday, and to a lesser extent SC and Nevada are the litmus tests of whether this is going anywhere.

My thoughts are still that it isn't.

Super Tuesday isn't the litmus, Nevada is. The Super Tuesday states are, as a group, heavily tilted towards Clinton; Sanders would be aiming for "reasonable loss" rather than anything else. Nevada is pretty close to being a swing-state demographically. A comfortable Clinton win in Nevada and this is over. It's effectively the new Iowa.

 

[benjipwns]

Thanks, we are making something that deals with the canadates (including obama) Not to say that the popular guys aren't needed but of course the more controversial and popular they are in media is more helpful for the product. Just trying to do some research and this is helpful.

Anyone else have anything else to add? I am going through some of the thread as well. Appreciate it man

In our product we will use the three main three or four guys as mains. We may use a couple of the other guys as a part of our product but won't make more than a few hints. So which actual people should I use? If there are any funny names or ideas from unknowns that is possible too!

So far we are using Trump, Hill and Obama for sure. I am already planning to use Cruz as a side character. Not sure if we will use past presidents or not though.

Use the candidate pages on here: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Their overall ratings can be goofy, but if you see each section/issue it has comments or statements the candidate has made, and links to quotes. Along with dates for the statements. (Trump, for example, has shifted from 2000 when he was arguably center-left in the American spectrum.)

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Use the candidate pages on here: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Their overall ratings can be goofy, but if you see each section/issue it has comments or statements the candidate has made, and links to quotes. Along with dates for the statements. (Trump, for example, has shifted from 2000 when he was arguably center-left in the American spectrum.)

Thanks, I hope I can find all I need but it does take research.

 

[Officerrob]

Turns out losing gets Trump to stop tweeting

 

[Holmes]

Super Tuesday isn't the litmus, Nevada is. The Super Tuesday states are, as a group, heavily tilted towards Clinton; Sanders would be aiming for "reasonable loss" rather than anything else. Nevada is pretty close to being a swing-state demographically. A comfortable Clinton win in Nevada and this is over. It's effectively the new Iowa.

Dude, Iowa had all the most favorable demographics for Sanders and he couldn't even win. Nevada has more favorable demographics for Clinton, so I'd say it's a little less than "pretty close" to being a swing state.

 

[User 463088]

Super Tuesday isn't the litmus, Nevada is. The Super Tuesday states are, as a group, heavily tilted towards Clinton; Sanders would be aiming for "reasonable loss" rather than anything else. Nevada is pretty close to being a swing-state demographically. A comfortable Clinton win in Nevada and this is over. It's effectively the new Iowa.

I agree. The tie told us, basically, that white liberals are split 50/50. We all pretty much knew that based on polling data. NV is the one I want to see what happens in before we can really know anything.

 

[And_Gignac]

Good night Hillary-GAF, heh

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Dude, Iowa had all the most favorable demographics for Sanders and he couldn't even win. Nevada has more favorable demographics for Clinton, so I'd say it's a little less than "pretty close" to being a swing state.

I'm not saying it's a swing-state as in it's closely contested, I'm saying that Nevada is very close to the demographic average for a Democratic primary in terms of age / liberal-conservative balance / minority numbers / etc. All things considered, you would expect the person who wins Nevada to win the nomination more often than not. The Super Tuesday states are pretty unreflective (bar Colorado); you could very well win them all and still not win the nomination. Hence, Nevada is a better litmus than Super Tuesday.

 

[Holmes]

I'm not saying it's a swing-state as in it's closely contested, I'm saying that Nevada is very close to the demographic average for a Democratic primary in terms of age / liberal-conservative balance / minority numbers / etc. All things considered, you would expect the person who wins Nevada to win the nomination more often than not. The Super Tuesday states are pretty unreflective (bar Colorado); you could very well win them all and still not win the nomination. Hence, Nevada is a better litmus than Super Tuesday.

Honestly, no? Clinton won Nevada in 08 and Obama won the South, so I dunno what you're even on about here. Sorry. Sounds like you're setting up a narrative if Sanders does decently in Nevada and loses on Super Tuesday.

 

[dabig2]

"...locked in a dead heat..."

Somewhere in the bowels of CNN an intern overhears Wolf Blitzer chanting that phrase over and over again to himself.

 

[AniHawk]

I'd be more concerned about Rubio really.

if rubio gets the nom, does trump go independent though?

 

[ErasureAcer]

Good night Hillary-GAF, heh

Too kind. Pictures I've seen Hillary and family looked bummed. Bernie and supporters ear to ear smiles. Tough headline. The picture needed to hammer it home.

 

[Officerrob]

One precinct remaining, Hillary up .3%

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Honestly, no? Clinton won Nevada in 08 and Obama won the South, so I dunno what you're even on about here. Sorry. Sounds like you're setting up a narrative if Sanders does decently in Nevada and loses on Super Tuesday.

I didn't say Nevada was perfect. I said it was close. It's more predictive than Super Tuesday of the nominee, than doesn't mean it gets it every time. I'm not setting up a narrative, I'm pointing out the truth.

EDIT: Also, Obama got more delegates from Nevada than Clinton in '08 even though he lost the popular vote, so you're not right.

 

[Black Republican]

Omalley pretty much saved Clinton from a defeat, agree?

most of them in polls had Sanders as 2nd choice

 

[benjipwns]

I didn't say Nevada was perfect. I said it was close. It's more predictive than Super Tuesday of the nominee, than doesn't mean it gets it every time. I'm not setting up a narrative, I'm pointing out the truth.

EDIT: Also, Obama got more delegates from Nevada than Clinton in '08 even though he lost the popular vote, so you're not right.

It was a caucus, the Obama team (like the Paul team in 2012) knew how the delegates were actually selected.

Also, that's not the popular vote, it's the county delegate vote.

The actual vote in Nevada to allocate the delegates was in the middle of May, three days before Obama went over the top in delegates.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Omalley pretty much saved Clinton from a defeat, agree?

most of them in polls had Sanders as 2nd choice

The coin saved Clinton from defeat. If the coins had gone 1-2 or 0-3 Sanders, then Sanders win. 3-0 or 2-1 Clinton, and Clinton win. Unfortunately, they went 3-0 Clinton.

 

[Officerrob]

.

 

[benjipwns]

The coin saved Clinton from defeat. If the coins had gone 1-2 or 0-3 Sanders, then Sanders win. 3-0 or 2-1 Clinton, and Clinton win. Unfortunately, they went 3-0 Clinton.

Of course they did, money is behind the Clinton's always.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ugh, apparently the last precinct is likely to go Sanders, so Sanders didn't even need to go 2-1. Literally just winning one of the three county-level coin tosses and he'd have won.


;_;

fuck that shit

 

[Abinash117]

Of course they did, money is behind the Clinton's always.

No, this is the sign of divine intervention. No way a godless commie would have won.

Ugh, apparently the last precinct is likely to go Sanders, so Sanders didn't even need to go 2-1. Literally just winning one of the three county-level coin tosses and he'd have won.


;_;

fuck that shit

 

[Officerrob]

NBC News named Hillary Clinton the "apparent winner of the Iowa Caucus"

 

[benjipwns]

No, this is the sign of divine intervention. No way a godless commie would have won.

Definitely not against a Goldwater Girl.

 

[User 463088]

Whoopdeedoo We Won

 

[Officerrob]

Whoopdeedoo We Won

Yeah, it wasn't a great night. Shit went REALLY wrong on the Republican side

 

[tmarg]

Ugh, apparently the last precinct is likely to go Sanders, so Sanders didn't even need to go 2-1. Literally just winning one of the three county-level coin tosses and he'd have won.

Being this close in what should have been one of his strongest states is already a loss for Sanders. He needed a significant win in order to be competitive the rest of the way.

So, I'm no expert on caucuses, but isn't it likely that the viability test probably influenced the republican side a lot this year? I imagine that accounts for some of Rubio's surge.

 

[shinra-bansho]

699.6 to 695.5.

 

[Black Republican]

and with that the train continues

February 9, 2016 New Hampshire 24
February 20, 2016 Nevada 35
February 27, 2016 South Carolina 53

Super Tuesday
March 1, 2016 Alabama 52
March 1, 2016 American Samoa 4
March 1, 2016 Arkansas 32
March 1, 2016 Colorado 64
March 1–8, 2016 Democrats Abroad 13
March 1, 2016 Georgia 102
March 1, 2016 Massachusetts 95
March 1, 2016 Minnesota 78
March 1, 2016 Oklahoma 38
March 1, 2016 Tennessee 68
March 1, 2016 Texas 208
March 1, 2016 Vermont 15 (
March 1, 2016 Virginia 95

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Being this close in what should have been one of his strongest states is already a loss for Sanders. He needed a significant win in order to be competitive the rest of the way.

I disagree. Iowa is barely over 1% of the available Dem delegates. The point of winning Iowa was never Iowa, per se, it was the headlines that come from it. This will get headlines - have you seen the front page of CNN right now? Again, it's still less likely than not that Sanders will win, but this kept him in the race, instead of e.g. a 3% loss with the headlines "Clinton rebukes Sanders advance" etc.

 

[tmarg]

I disagree. Iowa is barely over 1% of the available Dem delegates. The point of winning Iowa was never Iowa, per se, it was the headlines that come from it. This will get headlines - have you seen the front page of CNN right now? Again, it's still less likely than not that Sanders will win, but this kept him in the race, instead of e.g. a 3% loss with the headlines "Clinton rebukes Sanders advance" etc.

Sure, it keeps him in the race. It gives him a little more pull at the convention, etc. But it pretty much secures the nomination for Hillary, barring a massive collapse of her own creation.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sure, it keeps him in the race. It gives him a little more pull at the convention, etc. But it pretty much secures the nomination for Hillary, barring a massive collapse of her own creation.

I'd say she's the 80% favourite, sure. But if she'd won by say, 3 points, she'd be the 100% favourite.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I disagree. Iowa is barely over 1% of the available Dem delegates. The point of winning Iowa was never Iowa, per se, it was the headlines that come from it. This will get headlines - have you seen the front page of CNN right now? Again, it's still less likely than not that Sanders will win, but this kept him in the race, instead of e.g. a 3% loss with the headlines "Clinton rebukes Sanders advance" etc.

I'm just not sure how losing 1 out of your 3 strongest states is a position of strength. On 140k turnout no less (not revolution numbers). CNN will concern troll Clinton or Trump or whoever they think gets them their ratings, that's not really the issue.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm just not sure how losing 1 out of your 3 strongest states is a position of strength. On 140k turnout no less (not revolution numbers). CNN will concern troll Clinton or Trump or whoever they think gets them their ratings, that's not really the issue.

Turnout was 180k, actually, second highest to date - not bad for a two candidate race.

Regardless of whether Sanders wins or not, I want him to push Clinton as much as is possible. I think she will abandon most progressive issues if left to her own devices, so the more Sanders can force her to publicly commit to particular issues now, the happier I am. CNN continuing to concern troll Clinton is a win for me. A 3 point Clinton win would more or less have ended that.