Support NeoGAF

[User 463088]

So, at our high school football game we handed out fliers for local races that are coming up. Only 80% of the people immediately threw them in the trash! Progress.

Anyway, we decided to walk home instead of waiting on our ride. As we were walking, we came across a kitten. A very cute kitten who decided to follow us a few blocks. Once we got to a busy street, she showed no signs of leaving, so we picked her up and brought her home.

So, we've decided to keep her. Since we found her at a political rally, I thought we should give her a political name. I thought about Carly, but I decided I want something that would be relevant after Iowa. (Jeb! was excluded for the same reason). Still thinking of poli related names. I thought about Neo-Liberal Corporate Shrill, but it doesn't flow.

Spoiler

I actually want to name her Liza Meowy, but my boyfriend thinks that's too gay even for us....

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Shillary is the obvious cat name.

 

[User 463088]

Shillary is the obvious cat name.

Good point, but it should be spelled $hillary for added emphasis, don;t you think?

 

[benjipwns]

The race is usually decided by the end of february, but whatever reason, most of the major movements tend to happen in January, so it's still a little hard to call this early.

That's because Iowa, NH and often SC are in January, then there's a lull until Super Tuesday which is full of Winner Take All.

This cycle, Iowa isn't until Feb 1st, then we have a quick hit of the early ones once a week, then on March 1st is a large Super Tuesday. Then some Smaller Tuesdays in the weeks after.

And all of those March 1st and before are proportional.

There's no good reason to drop out before March 1st. Money doesn't matter because you'll still win delegates without winning the primaries. You can theoretically finish fourth in every primary and come out with the most delegates as long as the top three are different enough in each state.

If Trump and Carson come back down to Earth and we have a situation like we did back in June where we have eleven candidates between 17% and 3% nationally, it should take for the states March 8th and forward to start knocking out candidates. Candidates who will still have significant shares of the delegates collectively.

Still, usually those big January moves come from the underdogs that start to become known as people start scrambling for alternatives. I've never really seen someone that's treated like the frontrunner make a huge move from bottom feeding to the lead, since usually being treated like the frontrunner should be enough to make you the frontrunner or very close to it.

Clinton was close in 1992. And McCain in 2008.

 

[SenorArdilla]

Shillary is the obvious cat name.

And then you can change it to Killary if she brings back any dead critters.

 

[Makai]

Huh? Less than 5k people voted in the Maine primary?!

 

[Makai]

This is bullshit i want boehnerpigeon back

Yargh! Bring back assessing-the-damage boehner.

 

[benjipwns]

Huh? Less than 5k people voted in the Maine primary?!

6,250 Republicans did. Santorum and Gingrich were also still in the race. (18% and 7% respectively)

It was also a closed caucus, so only registered Republicans.

292,000 people wound up voting for Romney in the general election.

 

[benjipwns]

 

[lednerg]

^^ The reply to that is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/283322806/Hillary-Clinton-Circumcision-Email

 

[pigeon]

^^ The reply to that is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/283322806/Hillary-Clinton-Circumcision-Email

I like the redacted bits in this email because they're presumably redacted for being personal, meaning that the anecdote about the guy who circumcised Bin Laden was deemed potentially relevant to State Department business.

 

[benjipwns]

They didn't redact the job of the woman lol

http://www.nl.edu/about/leadership/president/aboutpresidentmegahed/

She should put it among her achievements.

Some of the redacted parts in these e-mails make me really wonder what the hell they're about, like the one at the end of Betsy's. She's rambling about the weather, then the e-mail and then a whole paragraph is taken out.

 

[Black Republican]

Steve Kornacki ‏@SteveKornacki 4m4 minutes ago
New NBC online poll, mostly conducted post-debate:
Trump 26
Carson 26
Cruz 10
Rubio 9
Bush 5
Fiorina 4
Huck/Kasich/Paul/Christie 2

more interested in the nbc/wsj poll, maybe this weekend?

 

[thepotatoman]

That's because Iowa, NH and often SC are in January, then there's a lull until Super Tuesday which is full of Winner Take All.

This cycle, Iowa isn't until Feb 1st, then we have a quick hit of the early ones once a week, then on March 1st is a large Super Tuesday. Then some Smaller Tuesdays in the weeks after.

And all of those March 1st and before are proportional.

There's no good reason to drop out before March 1st. Money doesn't matter because you'll still win delegates without winning the primaries. You can theoretically finish fourth in every primary and come out with the most delegates as long as the top three are different enough in each state.

If Trump and Carson come back down to Earth and we have a situation like we did back in June where we have eleven candidates between 17% and 3% nationally, it should take for the states March 8th and forward to start knocking out candidates. Candidates who will still have significant shares of the delegates collectively.


Clinton was close in 1992. And McCain in 2008.

Oh wow, didn't realize Iowa used to be so early. I just knew this one was in February.

I guess there is a lot more time left before things start really mixing up this year.

 

[benjipwns]

For reference:
2016 - Iowa: Feb 1 - NH: Feb 9 - SC: Feb 20 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 1 - "Tuesday of Annihilation": Mar 15*
2012 - Iowa: Jan 3 - NH: Jan 10 - SC: Jan 21, - "Super Tuesday": Mar 6
2008 - Iowa: Jan 3 - NH: Jan 8 - SC: Jan 19 (R)/Jan 26 (D) - "Super Tuesday": Feb 5
2004 - Iowa: Jan 19 - NH: Jan 27 - SC: Feb 3 - "Mini-Tuesday": Feb 3 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 2
2000 - Iowa: Jan 24 - NH: Feb 1 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 7
1996 - Iowa: Feb 12 - NH: Feb 20 - SC: Mar 2 - "Super Tuesdays": Mar 5/Mar 12
1992 - Iowa: Feb 10 - NH: Feb 18 - "Mini-Tuesday": March 3 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 10
1988 - Iowa: Feb 8 - NH: Feb 16 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 8
1984 - Iowa: Feb 20 - NH: Feb 28 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 13
1980 - Iowa: Jan 21 - NH: Feb 26 - SC: Mar 8 - "Super Tuesday": June 3
1976 - Iowa: Jan 19 - NH: Feb 24

2008 is of particular note, a month from Iowa to "Super Tuesday."

*Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina.

 

[HylianTom]

For reference:
2016 - Iowa: Feb 1 - NH: Feb 9 - SC: Feb 20 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 1 - "Tuesday of Annihilation": Mar 15*
2012 - Iowa: Jan 3 - NH: Jan 10 - SC: Jan 21, - "Super Tuesday": Mar 6
2008 - Iowa: Jan 3 - NH: Jan 8 - SC: Jan 19 (R)/Jan 26 (D) - "Super Tuesday": Feb 5
2004 - Iowa: Jan 19 - NH: Jan 27 - SC: Feb 3 - "Mini-Tuesday": Feb 3 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 2
2000 - Iowa: Jan 24 - NH: Feb 1 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 7
1996 - Iowa: Feb 12 - NH: Feb 20 - SC: Mar 2 - "Super Tuesdays": Mar 5/Mar 12
1992 - Iowa: Feb 10 - NH: Feb 18 - "Mini-Tuesday": March 3 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 10
1988 - Iowa: Feb 8 - NH: Feb 16 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 8
1984 - Iowa: Feb 20 - NH: Feb 28 - "Super Tuesday": Mar 13
1980 - Iowa: Jan 21 - NH: Feb 26 - SC: Mar 8 - "Super Tuesday": June 3
1976 - Iowa: Jan 19 - NH: Feb 24

2008 is of particular note, a month from Iowa to "Super Tuesday."

*Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina.

Wow.. flashback ahoy!

In 1996, Mardi Gras Day fell on the same day as New Hampshire's primary, and I remember my friends making fun of me for wanting to be home in time to watch election returns. I'm pretty sure I had more fun watching the reactions to Buchanan's win than had I stayed out doing the whole drinky-drinky thing.

 

[gcubed]

No one could have possibly guessed that Fiorina would just be a flash in the pan "hey shes a woman, we need one of those" candidates for the GOP.

No one

 

[BertramCooper]

Not sure if anyone else listens to On The Media, but this week's episode has a really good segment on how Marco Rubio continues to be portrayed as a frontrunner candidate despite the fact that the GOP has NEVER shown any considerable warmth toward him in polls.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

 

[Teggy]

RCP doesn't have any Clinton vs. Republican polls since before the Benghazi hearings. Cmon pollsters, do your job.

 

[Daniel B·]

Lee Camp, of Redacted Tonight, stating the obvious, on who really won the Democratic debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvP6edGhJvs.

Following Don Lemon's coverage of CNN's own Facebook Online poll, where Hillary was utterly destroyed, later, Don can't help but reveal the truth :

She dominated the Republican debate.

To back up CNN's ridiculous assertion, the next day they sighted a "scientific" poll of 1028 respondents, of which 61% (628), of the interviews, were conducted with people using a landline!

Who the fuck has a landline phone, and, not only has a landline, but is answering a landline phone!

This is not a poll of who won, it's a poll of whether propaganda works.

As I clearly illustrated the other day, no one, should over estimate the significance of any poll.

In an unrelated video, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, dubs Hillary 'pathetic', for playing the sexism card and she really, doesn't pull any punches.

It's great to see MSNBC's Morning Joe (I can't speak for the rest of the channel's coverage), is giving Bernie a fair crack at the whip, with a great interview too.

 

[B-Dubs]

You really have no idea how polling works do you?

 

[Bowdz]

Not sure if anyone else listens to On The Media, but this week's episode has a really good segment on how Marco Rubio continues to be portrayed as a frontrunner candidate despite the fact that the GOP has NEVER shown any considerable warmth toward him in polls.

There was a great article on Politico yesterday that brought up the statistic that more than 2/3rds of the donors from Romney's 2012 campaign have yet to donate any money this election. Somewhat random, but I do think we will see Rubio get a considerable bump from starting to emerge as the de facto establishment candidate. That said, I'm skeptical as to his ability to surpass the outsiders despite consolidating the field. Even if Rubio got all of the support from every candidate in a pure Trump/Carson/Cruz/Rubio field, he would still be shy of even the 26% that Trump and Carson both hold right now. If Carson drops out and his support is split between Cruz and Trump respectively, Rubio is still going to come up short.

It will be fascinating to watch this unfold.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Lee Camp, of Redacted Tonight, stating the obvious, on who really won the Democratic debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvP6edGhJvs.

Following Don Lemon's coverage of CNN's own Facebook Online poll, where Hillary was utterly destroyed, later, Don can't help but reveal the truth :



To back up CNN's ridiculous assertion, the next day they sighted a "scientific" poll of 1028 respondents, of which 61% (628), of the interviews, were conducted with people using a landline!



As I clearly illustrated the other day, no one, should over estimate the significance of any poll.

In an unrelated video, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, dubs Hillary 'pathetic', for playing the sexism card and she really, doesn't pull any punches.

It's great to see MSNBC's Morning Joe (I can't speak for the rest of the channel's coverage), is giving Bernie a fair crack at the whip, with a great interview too.

Is this some kind of joke? So those polls in Iowa and those nationwide polls where her support skyrocketed is bullshit too?

 

[thepotatoman]

RCP doesn't have any Clinton vs. Republican polls since before the Benghazi hearings. Cmon pollsters, do your job.

There was the PPP North Carolina one showing her losing badly to everyone but Bush.

 

[Mecha]

Is this some kind of joke? So those polls in Iowa and those nationwide polls where her support skyrocketed is bullshit too?

I don't think the video is denying that she's more popular, it's trying to say that the media is influencing that.

 

[Daniel B·]

Is this some kind of joke? So those polls in Iowa and those nationwide polls where her support skyrocketed is bullshit too?

Just providing some balance and I wouldn't want Hillary supporters to become complacent .

 

[ivysaur12]

There was the PPP North Carolina one showing her losing badly to everyone but Bush.

It also showed Bernie doing ~5 points worse than her on average.

 

[BertramCooper]

Just providing some balance and I wouldn't want Hillary supporters to become complacent .

No problem.

Thanks for unskewing it all for us.

 

[Cheebo]

Just providing some balance and I wouldn't want Hillary supporters to become complacent .

Will you be supporting Hillary in the general?

 

[User 463088]

Just providing some balance and I wouldn't want Hillary supporters to become complacent .

Mitt Romney's supporters provided balance too when their candidate didn't get the results they wanted in the polls.

As someone who spent most of 2004 arguing how the polls couldn't possibly be right, that there was no way in hell we were going to re-elect Shrub...I encourage you to go with the flow with polling. While they can make mistakes, it's highly unlikely a candidate's support is going to be missed by the 30%+ points necessary for Sanders to be winning right now.

The important thing is to monitor trend lines. If every poll is showing the same thing, and every poll is moving in a specific direction, then, more likely than not, there isn't some massive attempt by the media or the polling companies to change what's really happening. IMO, the most important thing to look at in the polling is how things are breaking down via demographics. You want to see your candidate competitive across demographics. One of the most recent polls showed Sanders losing every single group except 18-29 year olds. He was only winning that group by 10 points (Or there abouts. It may have be 13 or 14). Meanwhile, Hillary was beating him 68 to 8 among AA. That, IMO, is the reason this race is so stagnant.

Well, that and Sanders is trying to run a revolutionary campaign in a party that has a very popular sitting President. (Within the party, Obama's approval rating is in hte high 80s among Democrats).

 

[thepotatoman]

Not sure if anyone else listens to On The Media, but this week's episode has a really good segment on how Marco Rubio continues to be portrayed as a frontrunner candidate despite the fact that the GOP has NEVER shown any considerable warmth toward him in polls.

They should have included that he's not even doing that impressive in the fundamentals that might leave you to say he's stronger than the polls suggest. Likability, second choice, and head to head polling puts Carson in the lead. Endorsements and Money puts Bush in the lead. Literally the only thing Rubio has going for him is what that interview suggests. A New York/DC liberal media that focuses on trying to be unbiased likes Rubio better than they like Carson and Trump.

I guess you can argue the inevitability of him getting the endorsement and money lead when Bush gives up, but Bush giving up itself would prove endorsements and money doesn't really matter so much for this primary.

As a side note, it's a little annoying that the host called Ben Carson becoming the leader thanks to that single poll without ever mentioning how single polls don't really mean much compared to the aggregate, which Trump is still clearly leading. That's a major problem media has had since the beginning of polling, so you'd think a podcast pointing a critical eye at the media and interviewing Nate Silver would catch that.

 

[B-Dubs]

They should have included that he's not even doing that impressive in the fundamentals that might leave you to say he's stronger than the polls suggest. Likability, second choice, and head to head polling puts Carson in the lead. Endorsements and Money puts Bush in the lead. Literally the only thing Rubio has going for him is what that interview suggests. A New York/DC liberal media that focuses on trying to be unbiased likes Rubio better than they like Carson and Trump.

I guess you can argue the inevitability of him getting the endorsement and money lead when Bush gives up, but Bush giving up itself would prove endorsements and money doesn't really matter so much for this primary.

As a side note, it's a little annoying that the host called Ben Carson becoming the leader thanks to that single poll without ever mentioning how single polls don't really mean much compared to the aggregate, which Trump is still clearly leading. That's a major problem media has had since the beginning of polling, so you'd think a podcast pointing a critical eye at the media and interviewing Nate Silver would catch that.

Gotta drive that narrative.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

The media has no control over GOP primary voters. They tried to sink Trump and they continually brush off Carson but both keep doing better. They tried to force feed us Fiorina and that didn't last.

 

[BertramCooper]

They should have included that he's not even doing that impressive in the fundamentals that might leave you to say he's stronger than the polls suggest. Likability, second choice, and head to head polling puts Carson in the lead. Endorsements and Money puts Bush in the lead. Literally the only thing Rubio has going for him is what that interview suggests. A New York/DC liberal media that focuses on trying to be unbiased likes Rubio better than they like Carson and Trump.

I guess you can argue the inevitability of him getting the endorsement and money lead when Bush gives up, but Bush giving up itself would prove endorsements and money doesn't really matter so much for this primary.

As a side note, it's a little annoying that the host called Ben Carson becoming the leader thanks to that single poll without ever mentioning how single polls don't really mean much compared to the aggregate, which Trump is still clearly leading. That's a major problem media has had since the beginning of polling, so you'd think a podcast pointing a critical eye at the media and interviewing Nate Silver would catch that.

I like OTM a lot, but they've been reeeeeeeeally dismissive of Trump. And they've kept being dismissive despite the fact that he's been in the lead for several months now.

So yeah, even the supposed media watchdogs are biased against Trump.

Still love Brooke, but she has a major blind spot when it comes to Trump.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Just providing some balance and I wouldn't want Hillary supporters to become complacent .

Next thing you will tell me is Obama was down 30 points to Hillary in 08 and look how that turned out.

 

[brainchild]

Just providing some balance and I wouldn't want Hillary supporters to become complacent .

Well, at least you're transparent about your bullshit, lol

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I like OTM a lot, but they've been reeeeeeeeally dismissive of Trump. And they've kept being dismissive despite the fact that he's been in the lead for several months now.

So yeah, even the supposed media watchdogs are biased against Trump.

Still love Brooke, but she has a major blind spot when it comes to Trump.

Not a single vote has been cast for trump. I don't know why people are holding on to the idea that because he leads in the poll he's actually the front runner. There's so many examples of people not polling well till primaries.

People continually say the GOP is insane and the lunatics are running the asylums but time and time again even with all the messiness in between they tend to follow the same old patters. See Paul Ryan as speaker, see Romney as the nominee, see their ability to keep out crazies nominiees from winning primiaires in 2014 compared to 2012.

 

[NeoXChaos]

 

[User 463088]

Not a single vote has been cast for trump. I don't know why people are holding on to the idea that because he leads in the poll he's actually the front runner. There's so many examples of people not polling well till primaries.

People continually say the GOP is insane and the lunatics are running the asylums but time and time again even with all the messiness in between they tend to follow the same old patters. See Paul Ryan as speaker, see Romney as the nominee, see their ability to keep out crazies nominiees from winning primiaires in 2014 compared to 2012.

The way that I believe Trump is different from Frothy, for example, is that the party had some control over Frothy. What control do they have over Trump? What can they do to force his supporters to not support him. He doesn't have party support now. They're just not standing in his way because they don't know how to at this point. Trump is not reliant upon the party for anything.

 

[dramatis]

What are the chances we'll get a brokered convention for the Republicans?

 

[User 463088]

What are the chances we'll get a brokered convention for the Republicans?

God doesn't love me that much

 

[NeoXChaos]

What are the chances we'll get a brokered convention for the Republicans?

Bitter End Candidates
Cruz
Bush
Rubio

Wildcards after NH and IA
Fiorina
Trump
Carson

Dropouts after IA
Santorum
Huckabee
Graham
Jindal

Dropouts after NH
Kasich
Christie
Paul

 

[Basileus777]

Bitter End Candidates
Cruz
Bush
Rubio

I don't see Bush having the will to continue on if he struggles in the early races. I think he's too proud and image conscious to keep fighting a losing contest.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I don't see Bush having the will to continue on if he struggles in the early races. I think he's too proud and image conscious to keep fighting a losing contest.

But the leak suggests that his team is convinced he's an inevitability if he just sticks around long enough. "Voters have ADD," remember?

 

[NeoXChaos]

I don't see Bush having the will to continue on if he struggles in the early races. I think he's too proud and image conscious to keep fighting a losing contest.

My assumption is based on a bush rebound in NH with a giant caveat that the outsiders implode by then. In a race without the outsiders a Cruz win in IA and a Bush win in NH is plausible provided Kasich, Rubio, Paul and Christie play the roles of Romney 08, Paul 2012 and Huntsman 2012 respectively.

Idk if the outsiders will implode throwing the whole theory into the gutter. This may be the year they Goldwater 2.0.

 

[thepotatoman]

Not a single vote has been cast for trump. I don't know why people are holding on to the idea that because he leads in the poll he's actually the front runner. There's so many examples of people not polling well till primaries.

People continually say the GOP is insane and the lunatics are running the asylums but time and time again even with all the messiness in between they tend to follow the same old patters. See Paul Ryan as speaker, see Romney as the nominee, see their ability to keep out crazies nominiees from winning primiaires in 2014 compared to 2012.

I do see Paul Ryan as speaker after Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy all fell to the lunatics running the asylum.

I also see 2012 being the first time we've ever seen anybody like Cain leading at any point in modern history. But good for Romney defeating him I guess?

The fact of the matter is there were about a combined 40 days where anyone had a 6 point lead or higher over Romney. Carson alone has already been at least 6 points ahead of Rubio and Bush for about 60 straight days now, and show no signs of changing. Yes, history has shown that the front runners don't always win, but I still think this is the first time in history that the two people with huge leads in the polls are flat out not considered to be the frontrunners for no other reason than the fact that the new york media finds them too extreme.

 

[B-Dubs]

Not a single vote has been cast for trump. I don't know why people are holding on to the idea that because he leads in the poll he's actually the front runner. There's so many examples of people not polling well till primaries.

People continually say the GOP is insane and the lunatics are running the asylums but time and time again even with all the messiness in between they tend to follow the same old patters. See Paul Ryan as speaker, see Romney as the nominee, see their ability to keep out crazies nominiees from winning primiaires in 2014 compared to 2012.

I feel like if this were September that argument might hold more water, Trump has been on top for like 3 months now. If he was going to be flavor of the month his time would have passed a little while ago. There's people that don't poll well until the primaries but how many of them have overcome Trump's numbers. He up double digits on the entire establishment, if we combined them all into a single candidate he'd still be beating them.

Trump has not only been in front the longest, but he's also setting the tone for the entire field. They're stuck reacting to him, chasing his supporters, doing whatever the can to get out from under his shadow. Barring an unprecedented collapse, it's gonna be Trump.

I do see Paul Ryan as speaker after Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy all fell to the lunatics running the asylum.

I also see 2012 being the first time we've ever seen anybody like Cain leading at any point in modern history. But good for Romney defeating him I guess?

The fact of the matter is there were about a combined 40 days where anyone had a 6 point lead or higher over Romney. Carson alone has already been at least 6 points ahead of Rubio and Bush for about 60 straight days now, and show no signs of changing. Yes, history has shown that the front runners don't always win, but I still think this is the first time in history that the two people with huge leads in the polls are flat out not considered to be the frontrunners for no other reason than the fact that the new york media finds them too extreme.

I don't think it's the new york media so much as it is pundits not believing their eyes. Anyone who has been following politics professionally, or working in them professionally, sees Trump as a joke so they can't understand why everyone else doesn't see it too. It's a case of one echo chamber not understanding the other. The professionals are too far apart from the grassroots at this time, from the looks of it.

 

[Teggy]

There was the PPP North Carolina one showing her losing badly to everyone but Bush.

I'm not expecting the Democrats to take NC this go round. I'm mostly diablosing about those Carson +4 and worse national polls.

 

[BertramCooper]

Not a single vote has been cast for trump. I don't know why people are holding on to the idea that because he leads in the poll he's actually the front runner. There's so many examples of people not polling well till primaries.

People continually say the GOP is insane and the lunatics are running the asylums but time and time again even with all the messiness in between they tend to follow the same old patters. See Paul Ryan as speaker, see Romney as the nominee, see their ability to keep out crazies nominiees from winning primiaires in 2014 compared to 2012.

It's not just about the polls - it's about the media trying to minimize the impact Trump is having on this race.

I don't think Trump will win the nomination, though I'm not ruling it out. However, I think his presence is making it much more likely that someone like Ted Cruz gets the nomination over more establishment-friendly choices.