Black Mamba
Member
Ugh what's happening in France is disheartening.
-
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 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
Aren't you missing a ratio there; 4-1, delegates vs superdelegates? I'll take those odds, any day of the week.
RustyNails
Member
Rightwing nazis are gonna come out in full force. Ugh.
theprodigy
Member
Daniel B·;185399294 said:
except Clinton barely had a majority of declared superdelegates last time around (it's not like Obama was the only other candidate back then, I know)
now she has basically all of them
yeah sure if Sanders actually wins more regular delegates the superdelegates will switch instead of overwriting the voters, but that's not happening
Bel Marduk
Banned
User 463088
Banned
Daniel B·;185401706 said:
Are you trying to compare Super Delegates to Pledged Delegates?
Obama had 51% of the Pledged Delegates in 2008. Hillary had 49%.
According to what? The polls? You should check out that NYT article I posted, as it is quite likely some of these polls are garbage tier, especially when they don't take into account the influx of new voters, who haven't previously voted in a primary. I believe it was the Monmouth University polls that explicitly excluded those who hadn't voted in recent primaries. Also, I'm not sure if the article mentions it, but another article I saw mentioned the problem of cell phone users not answering phone calls from unknown numbers. As a matter of interest, do you? I leave my TracFone off
.Manmademan
Member
Daniel B·;185403701 said:According to what? The polls? You should check out that NYT article I posted, as it is quite likely some of these polls are garage tier, especially when they don't take into account the influx of new voters, who haven't previously voted in a primary. I believe it was the Monmouth University polls that explicitly excluded those who hadn't voted in recent primaries. Also, I'm not sure if the article mentions it, but another article I saw mentioned the problem of cell phone users not answering phone calls from unknown numbers. As a matter of interest, do you? I leave my TracFone off
Did you just this second discover the existence of polls that sample "Likely Voters?" You realize what this term means?
So first they have better sources than the White House and are going to release the data, then, "never mind"?
Yes, that's the right ratio for superdelegates accounting for 20% of the vote, no?
Retromelon
Member
a guest on cnn was saying that the paris attacks were a result of the ineffective methods used to combat isis. this would lay a sizeable portion of the blame for the attacks at the feet of president obama. in these trying times, what say you, poligaf.
I say what other options does he have available? Sending troops in isn't going to happen. That pretty much leaves bombing them. Unless you want to send troops in.
True or not, politically hawks in this country are about to ride this for all its worth. We don't know whose responsible, but if it's ISIS then it's a worst case scenario for Democrats and Obama and he will take a heavy hit politically for this. We all know the drill, he's projected weakness, he left the vacuum by withdrawing from Iraq, he didn't leave a residual force, he led from behind, he was slow to act on everything from Libya to Syria, and so on.
edit: That Trump tweet is from January and the French Ambassador mistakenly thought it was new and responded to it in a vicious way. He's since deleted it.
It's November, not January.
DOWN
Banned
My bad, it just got posted in the other thread
User 463088
Banned
Daniel B·;185404745 said:
Ya, in 2008 they made up about 20% of the total potential delegates....but I'm not getting your point.
Are you trying to say that the pledged delegates are more important to you than the superdelegates? I mean...ya, obviously. There's a lot more of them. However, as I mentioned before, the importance of super delegates is not on their voting at the convention. (They don't even have to vote if they don't want to.) It's in party support, ground game infrastructure, electability optics.
Ask yourself this question:
Not one single Senator has endorsed him for President. Not one single Senator. These are the people that should know him best, yet they don't support him. Hell, Sanders help form the House's Progressive Caucus. Two of its members have endorsed him. (His only two national, Democratic endorsements). Hillary has 45 of the Progressive Caucus Members endorsing her!
At a certain point, you just have to admit that the majority of Democrats are just not that into your dude. That's cool. You are. We're not. You don't have to start doing mental gymnastics to try and explain away everything that's not amazingly perfect for the Bern.
Basically, in a world where Clinton has a 45:1 advantage over Sanders in superdelegates, he can't win with 50.1% to 49.9%. He'd almost have to win with 60% of the vote, and win basically every winner-takes-all states. The presidential primary is not a democratic process. You're just helping the party choose its nominee.
Basileus777
Member
A world in which Sanders won a majority of the vote wouldn't be one where the superdelegates went 45:1 to Hiillary.
There are no winner take all states in the Democratic Primary. Every state is proportional.
Manmademan
Member
Well at least we know what Mark Penn's GAF name is now
Also, endorsements aren't binding. Super delegates can change their vote right up to the convention. And by and large, they will want to avoid overturning the will of the people, so many of them will switch to the winner of the most regular delegates.
Many super delegates who had at one point supported and endorsed Clinton did exactly that in 2008.
Note that I fully expect said winner of the most regular delegates to be Hillary, this time.
Many super delegates who had at one point supported and endorsed Clinton did exactly that in 2008.
Note that I fully expect said winner of the most regular delegates to be Hillary, this time.
So both the Democratic and Republican primary are undemocratic in their own unique ways.
Manmademan
Member
Here's Ted Cruz ruining acting out his favorite scene from the princess bride
it's about as good as you'd think
it's about as good as you'd think
BertramCooper
Banned
Oh hey look Republicans suddenly care about France
Only for political brownie points. Plus, maybe they can con France's leaders to go against the brown man.
Plus, it would be political suicide to say stupid shit right now. Unless you're Ben Carson.
Speaking of idiots, I am super glad they got Shep to report on the breaking news on Fox instead of another talking head.
Tarkus
Member
He's the best reporter on TV period. I'd watch him all day.
Yep. Hillary won the popular vote but lost the nomination in 2008. Don't need to say much more than that.
The primary process is a big game with its own wacky rules.
Woah woah woah, slow up. He's good compared to the assholes on FOX, but I don't know that'd I'd call him the best.
She only won the popular vote* because Michigan broke the rules and Obama wasn't on the ballot in them. Same with Florida, where he was on the ballot, but he did not campaign because Florida violated the DNC rules.
Hillary did NOT win the popular vote in the 2008 primary. Her campaign tried to push that narrative, but it was a lie that unfortunately became accepted as true. Obama didn't really bother fighting that battle because it didn't fucking matter.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
How many wars and escalations is Hillary going to be seriously considering tomorrow night at the debate?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Looks like Trump is gonna skyrocket through the polls. I think he was the only one advocating a ground invasion other than Graham right?
Jim Webb isn't there so I assume not many. She might want to talk tough, but unless Sanders decides to lose his mind and go all in on an invasion for the Middle East I doubt it'll be much more than some saber rattling.
Pretty much. Graham might see a bump too, maybe he'll finally make the big boy's table.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Nah, Carson wants a ground invasion also. Thinks we're going to pretty easily conquer and occupy Iraq and Syria.
The latest Reuters/Ipsos apparently has Trump in the 40s and way ahead of Carson. There's only some news reports so far, no data. However, the last few Reuters polls have had a big gap between Trumo and Carson and I haven't looked at the cross tabs to see why they seem out of line with the other polls.
I think it's just been a handful of polls that show Carson and Trump close at this point, the aggregate has been showing Trump pulling away again.
Also, remember you're looking at the likely voters in the primary when you quote that number. Not every poll has that number as the top billing, most just use a registered voter model. Reuters is more in line with everyone else when it's sorted by all respondents or registered voters.
Trump does a lot better in internet polls.
He also does better among likely voters, for reasons I don't understand.
Where have I heard that before...
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
It's only going to cost $100 billion-Bill Kristol
This goes against Nate's claim that he overperforms among low information voters who are unlikely to vote.
Tell that to the polling, not me. Nate hasn't been using the numbers when it comes to Trump for some reason. He's just not himself when it comes to Trump.
No, the numbers are out. You just have to change the Reuters settings to filter likely Republican primary voters.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked