ErasureAcer
Banned
Thank you.
So you guys are now covering for Nate and the ceiling for Sanders is 30 percent right? Let's get you all on record so you can stop shifting the goal posts.
-
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 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Thank you.
So you guys are now covering for Nate and the ceiling for Sanders is 30 percent right? Let's get you all on record so you can stop shifting the goal posts.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Guys. I'll vote for Joe Biden for Pres if he's the nominee. But Hillary. I can't do it. She said there's a link between videogames and violence when there is none. She's out of touch with reality.
How many of you Hillary supporters are flipping to Joe if he gets in the race?
How many of you Hillary supporters are flipping to Joe if he gets in the race?
BertramCooper
Banned
Coriolanus
Banned
Everybody in this thread that can vote will vote for whoever is the dem nominee.
Aside from benji
I mean, not like meta is ever gon admit that he will cast a vote for Trump, Walker or Jebba.
Aside from benji
I mean, not like meta is ever gon admit that he will cast a vote for Trump, Walker or Jebba.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The fact that so many people support Biden makes me question how many of them know what he actually believes, or think they're voting for Onion Joe Biden.
BertramCooper
Banned
I hope Bernie supporters realize that if he somehow wins the nomination, he will absolutely be forced to rely on the generosity of superPACs in the general election.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I live in a red state. I can do what I want.
Well, aside from the expansive free speech advocates like Brennan, I guess.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You mean... It's about ethics in gaming journalism?
I don't think being under 50 is a huge deal. From the start when Hillary was at 65% (or whatever it was), it's pretty much expected that the number will tumble. It gave her the advantage of having plenty of room to tumble and still hold a lead.
Nobody is shifting goalposts.
When Netroots Nation happened, anyone who is familiar with politics immediately knew what Bernie's challenges were going to be. These conclusions are based on data from the 2008 Democratic primary, and data from 2012 indicating demographic shifts.
In short, to get 51% of the vote in the primaries, Bernie is going to need black and latino votes.
He doesn't have them. It is unlikely he will gain them, because Obama commands the black vote (and he supports Hillary), and because Bernie's stances on immigration make the Hispanic crowd weary of him, plus Hillary has always had strong Hispanic support. To win against Hillary, you would literally need all of the white vote in Bernie's camp.
He's not going to get all of the white vote in his camp. Because he's not the history-making woman in this race.
If you have proof that he's gaining significantly in these areas, feel free to gloat. Otherwise, go back to the drawing board to cook up new narratives instead of pretending you have the upper hand in the discussion. You don't.
Nate Silver has a track record from 2008 and 2012. What do you have? A mouth.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I've been asking around for the reason people like Bernie and the answer is essentially that he's the candidate they'd like to have a beer with.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Also how does this poll stick it to Nate Silver? Bernie's supposed ceiling is 30% and Bernie is at 29%.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Everything I've followed from Silver right now is him saying "historically speaking, X happens, but there's no such thing as reliable polling data in fucken August of the year before the election so IDK" which is a completely reasonable position for him to take.
ErasureAcer
Banned
You have an imagination.
Obama could end the Democratic Primary tomorrow if he wanted to by endorsing Hillary. This sir is no imagination.
Sanders is no Obama 08.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-youre-no-barack-obama/
Yellowtail
Member
Obama could endorse Hillary (like Bill Clinton endorsed Gore over Bradley back in December 1999) and this whole primary would be game over. They could wing a Warren endorsement too if need be. That's one reason the Hillary campaign and the Democratic Party aren't sweating Sanders at all.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So they're gonna act like republicans?
Basileus777
Member
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Basileus777
Member
I wouldn't be surprised if that joke worked well into 2016 too.
Well, I mean, Obama won't do that. It's considered uncouth for sitting presidents to endorse, he might have to go introduce Bernie at the convention. But it really isn't necessary, because Hillary already has endorsements from literally every Democratic politician who's endorsed anybody. Except one guy who endorsed Martin O'Malley.
But it also isn't necessary for a different reason. If the Democrats were really upset with Bernie they could retaliate -- like, by kicking him out of the caucus or pointing out that he isn't a Democrat -- but they haven't. The reason they haven't is because everybody is okay with Bernie running. Somebody has to run against Hillary! It may as well be somebody further to the left, to test the waters and excite the base. And if it's a candidate that wouldn't be competitive in a normal primary, so much the better.
This is why I find discussions about whether Hillary or Bernie will win to be kind of pointless. Guys, Hillary's going to win because everybody, including Bernie Sanders, knows she's going to win. The entire Democratic political apparatus supports Hillary. Do you think they'd let Bernie get the political support he has if it wasn't understood he wasn't going to win?
The Democratic Party has the same kingmaking power as the GOP -- a lot more right now, actually, because the Democrats aren't fractured and dissolving as a coalition, and there aren't a variety of billionaires trying to control them. They have all the power they need to make Hillary win. Nobody's making this argument yet because it's unnecessary because "Hillary is way ahead in all the polls" is generally considered sufficient to explain why she'll win the nomination, but if that really did go away, don't worry, the party decides.
I thought "Eagle One" from the "Man Guarding Muslim-free Gun Range Shot Himself" thread was the worst nickname I've seen today, but apparently not.
My imagination is not nearly as wild as yours, since you conceived of the idea that Republicans would accuse Hillary of ten abortions.
No bite, not even a bark. Poor at debate?
Bernie's also conducting his campaign in a fashion that isn't very damaging to his opponents' prospects. I've seen a handful of times where a reporter has tried to bait him into attacking another candidate - on stuff that'd be really easy to score points with - and he's refused to take the bait. That's pretty telling.
wouldn't that look bad though?
_/¯ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Jeb is gonna win the nomination after finishing behind Trump in every poll though so it won't look any worse.
Yellowtail
Member
Early polls don't matter.
Except tomorrow when Quinnipiac releases a new batch of swing state polls. Get ready for the meltdowns.
No?
It wouldn't look like a smoke-filled room. It would just be a bunch more posts on Vox about Sanders's past, attacks on his campaign from Hillary surrogates, arguments about whether he's eligible for Democratic primaries given his previous independent status, Politico breakdowns about "the collapse of Bernie's campaign," and a few big political ads in Iowa and New Hampshire paid for by SuperPACs. You know Sanders comes from the state with the least restrictive gun control laws in the nation and his first campaign was paid for by the National Rifle Association, right? Well, you will.
That's pretty much exactly how the GOP went after all the candidates who were beating Romney in 2012, one by one. (Except they didn't use Vox, obviously.)
Polls don't matter, but there's nothing else.
Basically we're just sitting around tearing apart doves for the haruspex.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Damn, if you want to remind a Hillary voter of who they're getting in bed with, remind them she voted for mass incarceration, voted for the Iraq War, and sided with Wall Street at the worst possible moment.
Yeesh.
Yeesh.
Coriolanus
Banned
And what would that be? Tell usss....
Retromelon
Member
They matter as far as momentum and fundraising, but the truth is only hardcore supporters, journalists and guys like us give a crap about them at this point. We aren't going to have a clear picture of any of the contests for a few months.
The clearest of those pictures will be when we get actual votes in IA and NH in February. Everything between then and now is noise but boy do I love the noise.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You'll never guess!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
ChurchSynagogue
FTFY
We'll get an idea of who will actually win those contests sooner than February, but, yes, everything this far out is just static.
Debates matter too, and we haven't had one of those.
I think in this election cycle it probably wouldn't be as bad as in others... mostly because the right spent the last 8 years saying Obama was the biggest socialist since Saul Alinsky or whoever their current talking point is. I'm not entirely sure it's going to work as well as it probably could on our public. They've cried wolf for so long I'm just not sure people will perk up quite as much.
It's kind of like Benghazi fatigue.
That's because that only flied with Republicans because it simply was demonstrably false.
Bernie Sanders has literally said, on video, that he is a socialist.
speculawyer
Member
Both.
They are not indicative of the final winner at this point. However, they do shape the race. They seriously affect who people will donate to. The affect who is viewed as a candidate that has a chance in the general.
Their is a Heisenberg effect. As you measure the race, your measurement changes the race.j
Coriolanus
Banned
Do not misconstrue the issue, there is no need for that. You're dealing with people that think that having a socialist running against whatever clown is put up by the other side is a bet worth taking.
To be fair to them, the opposition's field has seldom been weaker.
I mean, I sort of feel that those clowns immediately become legitimate contenders at being President if you put them up against a self-avowed socialist.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Honestly, I'm like many of you, in that I think the 2016 election is particularly important for Supreme Court nominations. So, like many of you, I'd reluctantly cast a defensive vote for a candidate I'd rather not vote for, if necessary (e.g., Bush or--God help us--Trump). Luckily, I know how my state will go, so casting such an odious vote won't be necessary.
I'll never tell. Well, actually, I think it used to be in my profile and, for all I know, may still be there.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked