I know that, but I'm asking if there are any specific changes between then and now to cause the dearth in polling.
-
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
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Someone spitting truth. Our spectrum is moving leftwards in this country, not right. Change is happening. Don't throw it in the dumpster chasing after a pied piper.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Clinton wouldn't be moving to the right, just inching a bit more to the left.
Assuming she stayed the course of Obama, who's been able to move the country slowly to the left (well, back to the center) through judicial appointments and executive action.
Macho Madness
Member
Not really. It's odd that the only poll since December is the poll we got on Friday. Maybe with all the new registered voters in NV, it's become more difficult to poll ergo not worth it for pollsters to risk their reputations? Only thing I can think of.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
As I come to understand Iraq and what it implies about the human condition, I also realize that few humans will permit themselves such an understanding.
Trump's different.
Trump understands perfectly.
... And he doesn't care.
Descriptive bit about Trump or no?
Trump's different.
Trump understands perfectly.
... And he doesn't care.
Descriptive bit about Trump or no?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Not odd when you see who was behind it and what their likely intentions were.
Is this your first Presidential election? Do you not realize how delicate the state of our politics is right now? Bernie is not going to move the spectrum any further to the left than Obama has or Hillary would be able to.
Assuming he wins, please tell me how Bernie is going to magically shift the spectrum to the left with a GOP House and most state Governorships and legislatures being in Republican hands? I'm really interested to read your response.
Shouting and promising the sky to impressionable young left leaning voters won't do it.
He won't win the nomination, but ideally his presence shows the Democrats that it is possible to get widespread moderate and independent support with outspoken liberal policies. Sanders doing as well as realistically possible is a benefit to the party and American politics.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
John Podhoretz has maybe the worst paragraph about Trump from this campaign:
http://nypost.com/2016/02/13/trump-was-out-of-control-in-south-carolina-debate/
Yes: "Bush was president on 9/11" was far worse than "Mexico... they're sending rapists."
I hate Trump and his white supremacist ass, but the intellectual breakdown of the GOP is fun to watch.
http://nypost.com/2016/02/13/trump-was-out-of-control-in-south-carolina-debate/
Yes: "Bush was president on 9/11" was far worse than "Mexico... they're sending rapists."
I hate Trump and his white supremacist ass, but the intellectual breakdown of the GOP is fun to watch.
As a Bernie supporter, I will tell you that you are panicking over nothing. This is ultimately a good thing for Clinton because it should force her to make a more focused campaign and come to terms with her faults as a candidate, but Bernie doesn't have the demographics to win in the end.
If Hillary loses NV he will have a chance of winning the nom.
In a weird sense I think having no polls is probably okay. It means things are a bit up in the air and on caucus day we are going to be holding on to our butts, but at the same time at least GAF isn't losing their minds over numbers.
I'm just curious why there is such a difference in the number of polls compared to previous elections. But that's something for future pollsters to worry about, I suppose. In the end it's sort of funny that 2008 was exciting enough for them to think it was worth the cost, but in 2016 it's apparently too expensive.
Agreed.
As a Hillary supporter, I'm glad that the race is competitive because she is a deeply flawed candidate. She is getting better and will hopefully continue to do so, but the notion that she'd be better off having no one probe obvious shortcomings is laughable.
Besides, if she does lose to Bernie, guess what happens? WE CAMPAIGN OUR ASSES OFF TO GET HIM ELECTED. This election is important and we all need to keep the main goal in focus. It is not about electing Hillary or electing Bernie. It is about electing a Democrat to succeed President Obama. That is all that matters.
If she loses in NV they should fire everyone and beg Plouffe and Axelrod to take the whole thing over.
SenorArdilla
Member
Trump is going to win, isn't he?
and win and win and win and win
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I disagree. The Democratic primary is a bit of a joke in terms of how nice the two sides are to each other. Clinton also has the distinct pleasure of having the entire Republican party campaigning against her while Sanders gets to do his own thing. In fact, as someone posted earlier, he has the GOP basically running ads doing some of the work for him in Nevada.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Hillary and Bernie both have like +70 favorables, they're two of the most liked candidates by their own party ever, lol.
The nomination? Yeah. The presidency? 30% of voters are non-white so unless 70% of white voters are racists who care more about racial hatred than any other policy position, nah.
The nomination? Yeah. The presidency? 30% of voters are non-white so unless 70% of white voters are racists who care more about racial hatred than any other policy position, nah.
Bernie's head as reflective as his glasses.
theprodigy
Member
You're reading a prime Diablos meltdown.
This needs to be put in bold at the top of every election thread from now until November.
and its only February.
I honestly don't know after last night. He basically pissed all over everything republicans hold dear. The next polls will be telling, if he's still up after that, nothing can touch him.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
so many more to go
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
He pissed over everything Republican politicians and pundits hold dear. The Dixiecrats are going to be on-board with "I won't do things like Iraq and I hate people of color."
What Republican think tanks care about and what Republican voters in the south care about are pretty different.
Veritigo_X
Member
I love how this is the part of my post you chose to reply to. But it's Valentines Day and Kanye's new album dropped so I'll let it slide. My posting has gotten kinda lazy today as well.
You seem to be siding with Senate Republicans who are taking this stance. I didn't think it was too much of a stretch to assume you thought that way as well. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
I know I made the joke after Iowa, or was it New Hampshire, that it seemed like Hillary is winning the places Obama did in 2008 and Bernie is winning the places Hillary did. It'll be pretty damn funny if that holds true through the rest of the primary.
Anyone have a list of who won what in 2008?
Obviously there is a group of voters like you described, but we don't actually know how big they are. The PP stuff could be very damaging, even with voters who are only socially conservative. He hit a lot of sacred cows last night, not just Bush.
We elected Barack Obama in 2012 knowing that he had the power of judicial appointment.
We elected a Republican Senate majority in 2014 knowing that they had the power of advice and consent.
Both of these things are true. That does not mean that, as McConnell seems to be arguing, that Obama should not nominate a judge. Or that the Senate should not even vote on the judge that Obama nominates. Yes, they may not confirm that appointment. That's a completely valid use of their constitutional power.
But before a nominee is even announced, to make a blanket statement that the nominee will not even be considered by the United States Senate is something entirely else.
We elected a Republican Senate majority in 2014 knowing that they had the power of advice and consent.
Both of these things are true. That does not mean that, as McConnell seems to be arguing, that Obama should not nominate a judge. Or that the Senate should not even vote on the judge that Obama nominates. Yes, they may not confirm that appointment. That's a completely valid use of their constitutional power.
But before a nominee is even announced, to make a blanket statement that the nominee will not even be considered by the United States Senate is something entirely else.
cartoon_soldier
Member
If Clinton loses Nevada time to write off the presidency.
I also still believe Rubio will be GOP nominee.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Every campaign Hillary ever ran had her ending worse than where she began. I wouldn't be that confident in her ability to turn things around.
Honestly, I think people should look at her past campaigns and feel really uneasy about her chances in the general election given her long history of people liking her less as they see her more.
You remember Obama lost it in 2008 right? If she follows his trajectory she'll be fine.
The GOP will pick Trump, just admit you lost the bet and revel in the fuckery with the rest of us.
Not every campaign.
I'm pretty confident she'll win Nevada, and then South Carolina by a country mile. And then there's Super Tuesday. We're all hand wringing over Iowa (which she won) and New Hampshire, but I don't think either of those wins will be enough to help. She's still far and ahead the favorite, and Bernie has yet to be ahead in any national poll of the race.
Alternatively, I'm not confident in Bernie's ability to turn things around.
Frank the Great
Banned
Well said.
McConnell done goofed. His position has no logical basis . . . if you apply his new partisan approach to "advice and consent" to all vacancies, they would only ever get filled when the same party controls the presidency and the Senate. That would be a disastrous outcome for the judicial branch.
Senate seats are not nationally elected, so I don't think it makes sense at all to say Americans as a whole elected a Repbulican senate to block Obama from appointing his nominees. The nation did vote to give Obama 4, not 3 years of the Presidency. Further only 9 seats were flipped to R in 2014. So because voters in those 9 states wanted an R senator, the other 91 Senators shouldn't get a vote? This argument makes no sense.
If they actually want to just vote down the nomination, that is one thing, but McConnell won't even entertain the idea and that is a problem
That is a good point too
If they actually want to just vote down the nomination, that is one thing, but McConnell won't even entertain the idea and that is a problem
That is a good point too
Coriolanus
Banned
Yes, but i don't quite get what you mean, my friend. Do explain.
So would R-money
Yoda
Member
I disagree, Caucuses == more involved voters, and on the democratic side those will break for Sanders. I think if she doesn't have an impressive margin in SC, her campaign will be letting off death rattles.
It's also a closed caucus, which means it'll do significantly better for Clinton. Her operation is lightyears ahead of Bernie's, and Bernie still has the stink of trying to fuck with Culinary.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Precisely. No one is expecting a GOP Senate to rubber stamp just anyone, but whoever Obama nominates deserves a fair hearing and floor vote.
This "wait until the next election" stuff is just ridiculous. By that logic a president should never be able to do anything out of deference to the next president. This is a vacancy that should be filled right now. Let's call a spade a spade here: the GOP is mad that they're about to lose their grip on the Court and want to go for broke by punting it to the next election.
Meta, you are highly intelligent yet also are acting completely irrationally and partisan. Yes, it's unfortunate that this happened because of a sudden death, but the president nominates. There is no reason why Obama should wait. Elections have consequences. See: 2012
Yoda
Member
The same argument could be applied to Iowa in terms of her operation. She had almost every single endorsement, most of the old Obama team for her campaign, unlimited funds, and started 50+ points ahead in the polls. That resulted in a tie. Bernie looses favorable demographics, but comes in with momentum. I expect it to be close or favor Clinton, but there are structural advantages that favor Sanders.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
When demographics are against you, AND you are running against someone who will promise anything to win, it's difficult.
There's a lot of different issues with Nevada and the lack of decent polling doesn't help things at all. With the information we have available you could make arguments for either candidate winning this thing by a slim margin. Which is why I don't like Nevada at all and hope it stays irrelevant, at least until they get better polling.
benjipwns
Banned
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked