• 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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
But there's supposed to be a revolution going on that will upend the political status quo.

New Hampshire Dem winners:

2000 Al Gore 76,897
2004 John Kerry 84,390
2008 Hillary Clinton 112,404
2016 Bernie Sanders 151,578

Over 150k votes for a candidate who is a self-proclaimed socialist. Someone who has attached himself with a word that is more poisonous in this country than Muslim and Atheist. That's what we mean by a revolution. #FeelTheBern
 
New Hampshire Dem winners:

2000 Al Gore 76,897
2004 John Kerry 84,390
2008 Hillary Clinton 112,404
2016 Bernie Sanders 151,578

Over 150k votes for a candidate who is a self-proclaimed socialist. Someone who has attached himself with a word that is more poisonous in this country than Muslim and Atheist. That's what we mean by a revolution. #FeelTheBern

Will the revolution include black people? Or will he say they are too busy on street corners.
 

User 406

Banned
Haha, I just saw the thread about Cruz' new "feels good to be a Clinton" ad, and before I even clicked it, I was making up lyrics in my head. I didn't really think that would be what the ad was about, but they did the entire Office Space bit! Best political ad so far this season. XD


Also downloaded my sample ballot for the primary, and it looks like I'll be voting O'Malley.

Michael C. O'Malley, that is, since he's running against that piece of human garbage McGinty for Prosecuting Attorney.
 
I need a source for this street corner thing.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/democ...o-improve-race-relations-219176#ixzz3zyjA72rT

I missed it at first too.

Under a President Bernie Sanders, race relations in the United States will be better than under the current president, he affirmed.

“Absolutely," he said in response to a question from the moderator. "Because what we will do is instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires, we are going to create millions of jobs for low-income kids so they’re not hanging out on street corners. We’re going to make sure those kids stay in school are able to get a college education."
 
You poor, poor non-fabulous man. I'll pray for you.



3f6263_7911112a154e42218b06732b372d26f0.gif
Even if I were gay, I could never top your fabulousness.. I don't think anyone could. Neil Patrick Harris would probably hold your jock.
 

CCS

Banned
Nate going in:

This would put both Jeb's 6-4-3-3-6-5-2-5-5-4-3 plan and Rubio's 3-5-4-5-4-3-2-3-5-4 plan right on track.
Source I trust sends these SC tracking numbers from a non-Jeb campaign; Trump 34, Cruz 17, Jeb 12, Rubio 10. Kasich in single digits.
 

benjipwns

Banned
There are more low-income white kids than low-income black kids. Social-Fascist-GAF really must be emotionally disturbed over the fact that Sanders has put a roadbump in their Party Coronation.
 
Someone on another message board is trying to claim Hillary Clinton has been weak with gender equality. I know this isn't true, but is there a handy link to refute this?
 

Gruco

Banned
Nate going in:

The greatness of Rubio's third place gloating and the nonsense of 3-2-1 will never get old. Never.

The greatness of Rubio's third place gloating and the nonsense of 3-2-1 will never get old. Never. The greatness of Rubio's third place gloating and the nonsense of 3-2-1 will never get old. Never.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Someone on another message board is trying to claim Hillary Clinton has been weak with gender equality. I know this isn't true, but is there a handy link to refute this?
She has a long history of attacking women who make sexual discrimination and abuse claims that might hurt her political career.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
CbCQsPqW8AIVmbm.png


Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are in a tight race to win Nevada, according to a poll taken this week.

The survey, paid for by the conservative Free Beacon, shows a 45-45 tie. It was conducted by TargetPoint of 1,236 potential Nevada caucusgoers from Feb. 8-10, with a margin of error just under 3 percent. That's a lot of interviews -- "867 interviews were completed using automated telephone technology and 369 were conducted using mobile phones," according to the polling instrument, which I have posted below along with the crosstabs.

I understand some, especially partisans, will be skeptical of the results because of the Free Beacon's leanings and because the questions after the horse race will be seen as anti-Hillary. But this is silly. Any poll should be judged on its merits and not by who paid for it.

My take:

Some thoughts:

►If the survey is right -- and remember how hard it is to gauge voter sentiment for caucuses -- it would explain the ludicrous expectation-lowering by the Clinton campaign. Maybe the poll matches their internals.

►The crosstabs (alas, there is no race breakdown) look reasonable on regional breakdown: 66 percent for Clark, 18 percent for Washoe and 16 percent for the rurals. Maybe a little low on Clark, but in the ballpark.

►Clinton loses on trust, 53-29; on who cares about people like you, 49-36; and who is progressive, 49-36. Danger, Will Robinson!

►The sample is almost 60 percent female (about what it as in '08), which ought to worry Clinton. Sanders leads 63-16 among young voters (18-29), and if there are a lot of youngsters who register on Caucus Day.... She's also losing among independents, as the Free Beacon reported.

►Yes, there are a lot of Free Beaconish questions about bad issues for Hillary. But they all come after the initial horse race.

Finally, let's remember: Even in '08, with the record Democratic turnout, it was only 27 percent. So the cliche of cliches is apt here: It's all about which campaign gets its voters to the polls. And with same-day registration on Feb. 20 -- new registrants were a quarter of the turnout in '08 -- the accuracy of any pre-caucus poll should be taken with a grain of salt. Or 100.

https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/poll-sanders-and-clinton-nevada-dead-heat
 
So, I was reading about the event of no candidate getting 270, just in case some New York billionaire decides to run a spoiler campaign, and I learned something new. I'm sure most people here know that the House votes on the President in that case, and he Senate votes on VP. But there were two wrinkles I learned. Firstly, the house is allowed to pick only from the top three electoral vote winners for president, but the Senate can only pick from the top two electoral vote winners for VP. So you could end up with a I/R ticket. Or I/D. But very unlikely an independent VP.

But secondly, and more interestingly, even though the house gets to pick, it is not the case that each representative gets a vote. Rather, each state delegation gets one. So the 25 Texan Rs and and 11 Ds get one vote (obviously for the R) and the California delegation, which is 39-11, would only cast one D vote. Which is the same as the Alaska delegation, which is just one Republican.

So, it's even possible for a candidate to fail to get a majority of voters, fail to get a majority of electors, AND fail to get a majority of the house, yet still become President. The important thing isn't to control the house, but to control each individual state delegation. Now, odds of someone taking advantage of that is low, but it is the new house that gets to choose, not the old one. So, it could happen that the Dem candidate could win despite a Republican house, provided they were savvy enough to make sure that the right Democrats won the right seats in the house.

It'll never happen, but I thought it was interesting. If I knew better which seats are actually up for reelection in the house, I could get an accurate number, but in theory, the Democrats could pick the president despite their candidate not getting a majority in all three stages and they might only have to flip as few as 9 seats.

Again, it's just political fan fiction, but it was a fun distraction.
 

Ecotic

Member
Those politico insiders are in such denial. "He won't survive the long haul." If Trump wins South Carolina he's the prohibitive favorite, there is no long haul. Not to mention the most likely scenario where Trump loses is due to Cruz taking it instead. Republicans have one week to perform a miracle.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I don't think so--I think if he survives Super Tuesday in front, which just requires kasich and bush not dropping out, he should be fine. If they do drop out, Rubio should pull ahead.
 
I'm heated the same way I was in grade school when class president candidates would promise to ban exams and homework and make everyday rectangular pizza day in the cafeteria.

Shit they got my vote.

But chicken nuggets with mashed potatoes and yellow gravy day is better and I prefer that over rectangular pizza day.
 

sangreal

Member
So, I was reading about the event of no candidate getting 270, just in case some New York billionaire decides to run a spoiler campaign, and I learned something new. I'm sure most people here know that the House votes on the President in that case, and he Senate votes on VP. But there were two wrinkles I learned. Firstly, the house is allowed to pick only from the top three electoral vote winners for president, but the Senate can only pick from the top two electoral vote winners for VP. So you could end up with a I/R ticket. Or I/D. But very unlikely an independent VP.

But secondly, and more interestingly, even though the house gets to pick, it is not the case that each representative gets a vote. Rather, each state delegation gets one. So the 25 Texan Rs and and 11 Ds get one vote (obviously for the R) and the California delegation, which is 39-11, would only cast one D vote. Which is the same as the Alaska delegation, which is just one Republican.

So, it's even possible for a candidate to fail to get a majority of voters, fail to get a majority of electors, AND fail to get a majority of the house, yet still become President. The important thing isn't to control the house, but to control each individual state delegation. Now, odds of someone taking advantage of that is low, but it is the new house that gets to choose, not the old one. So, it could happen that the Dem candidate could win despite a Republican house, provided they were savvy enough to make sure that the right Democrats won the right seats in the house.

It'll never happen, but I thought it was interesting. If I knew better which seats are actually up for reelection in the house, I could get an accurate number, but in theory, the Democrats could pick the president despite their candidate not getting a majority in all three stages and they might only have to flip as few as 9 seats.

Again, it's just political fan fiction, but it was a fun distraction.

very interesting -- also it seems you need 2/3 of senators present to vote for VP so it can be fillibustered by skipping town and dodging the sgt of arms

anyways, all of the house seats are up for re-election
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom