I... don't actually know what this is supposed to mean.
-
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
I... don't actually know what this is supposed to mean.
brainchild
Banned
Then you refer to the statistics of the person (in this case, their vote), not the person directly. Calling a person an outlier is a direct descriptor of that person. It's not right.
It is because the party has had so many opportunites to stick it to Trump and no one ever seems to do it. They just assume he will make himself implode at some point but he is a force of nature right now that I do not know they can stop.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I feel like the "Bernie First, Trump Second" type voters is such an overblown phenomenon. I think it's a group that is almost entirely 1) Voters who are anti-establishment always, and probably wouldn't have voted for democrats anyway, barring Bernie, so therefore don't really represent lost votes for Clinton, or 2) They're just Trump supporters who are trolling because it pisses off Clinton supporters. There's probably elements of sexism there, too. But either way, these people don't represent Democrats leaving the party because Hillary isn't a good candidate. They're people who weren't ever really reliable Democrat voters. Further, I think they're a crazy loud group, but not necessarily a large one. Just because they've taken over a few subreddits doesn't mean it's a huge movement, or a majority. The fact that Sanders supporters have taken over any subreddit is proof that you don't need to be a majority to control something on that site.
Do I think these people have fucked up political priorities? Sure. Do I wish they'd vote how I do? Sure. But I'm not worried that they'll have a meaningful impact on the election. It seems to me that there are probably far more anti-Trump Republicans than there are anti-Clinton Democrats.
Do I think these people have fucked up political priorities? Sure. Do I wish they'd vote how I do? Sure. But I'm not worried that they'll have a meaningful impact on the election. It seems to me that there are probably far more anti-Trump Republicans than there are anti-Clinton Democrats.
You are the only person who thinks we are doing this when we discuss demographic trends. No one else is saying they're a monolith. People aren't monolithic.
This isn't tone-deafness, this is data.
Elaugaufein
Member
I'm not even sure how that works. My ISideWith gives Bernie Sanders then Jill Stein then Hillary Clinton. I have Johnson scoring more than twice Trump's value (which is likely an outlier I am far more libertarian on speech, privacy and nat sec than the GAF average I suspect) .
Its almost mathematically impossible to go Sanders - -> Trump (there's like ~31% overlap maximum).
If I was American and your voting system wasn't hell on 3rd partied I'd totally vote for Stein before Clinton though (but I'm a member of the Greens).
I can even understand sitting out. But voting for Trump only makes sense in a "fuck it, burn the world" way.
Its almost mathematically impossible to go Sanders - -> Trump (there's like ~31% overlap maximum).
If I was American and your voting system wasn't hell on 3rd partied I'd totally vote for Stein before Clinton though (but I'm a member of the Greens).
I can even understand sitting out. But voting for Trump only makes sense in a "fuck it, burn the world" way.
my name is ed
Banned
Hispanics/Latinos who vote Republican are not so uncommon. I could easily see the interest many would have in voting for Rubio, for example, or Bush if he were still in it. However, voting for Trump specifically *is* voting against many of the interests of the Hispanic/Latino community and I'd have no problem telling that to someone's face who thinks otherwise. I say that as a Mexican immigrant living in Texas.
I'd be interested to see if there are any patterns among Hispanic/Latinos who did vote for Trump. How many generations their families have lived in the US, how their income compares, and what their biggest issues are, etc.
I'd be interested to see if there are any patterns among Hispanic/Latinos who did vote for Trump. How many generations their families have lived in the US, how their income compares, and what their biggest issues are, etc.
User 463088
Banned
A few people asked me to redo my delegate "predictions" : cough guesses :
So I did. Here's my methodology:
Use the most recent poll from each state. In the event that two polls were released within a day of each other, use the one with the best 538 ranking and lowest MoE. If there are no polls for that state available, I immediately gave Bernie 55% of the vote for that caucus/primary. (There were only a handful of those that didn't have things for them.) When it came to undecided, I let them break 50/50. I also assumed Hillary won't be viable in Vermont. I awarded all delegates strictly proportional and not by congressional district. Basically, anything that I could do to benefit Sanders, I did. Anywhere I could take a delegate from Hillary, I did. This is, quite literally, the best I could come up for based on current polling for Bernie.
Total:
H 86
B 70
For Super Tuesday, first number is total delegates 2nd is Hillary, 3rd is Bernie.
Total to date:
H--------584
B--------431
This gives Hillary a 153 delegate lead over Bernie. He's under performing his Cook estimates by 84 delegates.
March 5th
Total to date
H---------644
B---------480
Maine on the 6th
H---------655
B---------494
March 8th
H--------756
B--------559
March 15th (ie End of the Road Really)
H---------1171
B----------835
At this point, she has a pledged delegate lead of 336. Bernie is 166 under his Cook "I can tie this" goals.
Super Delegate totals
H---------1622
B---------854
Hillary would need 761 more delegates to win the nomination.
Bernie would need 1529.
So, basically, as of March 15th, Bernie is 336 pledged delegates behind, and 768 pledged/soft delegates behind. This is the best case I can come up for for him. There are a lot of places where he could lose by a lot more than he is now.
So I did. Here's my methodology:
Use the most recent poll from each state. In the event that two polls were released within a day of each other, use the one with the best 538 ranking and lowest MoE. If there are no polls for that state available, I immediately gave Bernie 55% of the vote for that caucus/primary. (There were only a handful of those that didn't have things for them.) When it came to undecided, I let them break 50/50. I also assumed Hillary won't be viable in Vermont. I awarded all delegates strictly proportional and not by congressional district. Basically, anything that I could do to benefit Sanders, I did. Anywhere I could take a delegate from Hillary, I did. This is, quite literally, the best I could come up for based on current polling for Bernie.
Total:
H 86
B 70
For Super Tuesday, first number is total delegates 2nd is Hillary, 3rd is Bernie.
Total to date:
H--------584
B--------431
This gives Hillary a 153 delegate lead over Bernie. He's under performing his Cook estimates by 84 delegates.
March 5th
Total to date
H---------644
B---------480
Maine on the 6th
H---------655
B---------494
March 8th
H--------756
B--------559
March 15th (ie End of the Road Really)
H---------1171
B----------835
At this point, she has a pledged delegate lead of 336. Bernie is 166 under his Cook "I can tie this" goals.
Super Delegate totals
H---------1622
B---------854
Hillary would need 761 more delegates to win the nomination.
Bernie would need 1529.
So, basically, as of March 15th, Bernie is 336 pledged delegates behind, and 768 pledged/soft delegates behind. This is the best case I can come up for for him. There are a lot of places where he could lose by a lot more than he is now.
I guess my point is polling for st states has been light, Rubio could easily out perform and pick up a lot of delegates to stay at pace with trump. Rubio has out performed every state except nh. Small sample, but he does get late decides.
I haven't read anything offensive and I'm Mexican. There's a special place in hell for Mexicans that vote Republican.
benjipwns
Banned
This wasn't as hard as I thought: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1963905885
GregLombardi
Member
La epoca de la verdad ha llegado.
There's 25 states that vote in the next 3 weeks (plus some territories and the like). There's still 4 other candidates running to split the anti-Trump vote. Rubio didn't have a lot of money nor organization in all these states at the beginning of February.
The mega-donor Super PAC money isn't coming to save the day. There's very little time left.
I guess the best-case scenario for Rubio is someone KOs Trump in the debate and he doesn't expand his lead that much on Super Tuesday. Kasich gets forced out. Rubio wins Florida to make up the delegate gap, Cruz drops out, and it's an even race delegate-wise.
Elaugaufein
Member
It depends , do you think Sanders genuinely thought be could win or was just running to give his issues light ? Because in the latter case there's no reason to stop except running out of money. Or maybe the Republicans getting their act together and Sanders wanting to give her breathing room for the general.
(Its not like the Party can lean on him, they've already made it quite clear that they vastly prefer Clinton. Hell to hear some in this thread tell it hes's utterly loathed by a group he caucuses and votes with most of the time, which just means they don't even have an emissary. )
Erm that's Trump -> Clinton
Seems relatively realistic to me!
User 463088
Banned
I mean, this is all rough math, so please don't like nail me to the wall on it lol
HOWEVER, he would have to win close to 70-75% of all the remaining delegates to actually win. If she comes out of Super Tuesday with a 100 delegate advantage, it's 100% over. There month of March doesn't get better for him. It only gets worse and worse. I would think she would have the total delegates needed by the end of April, ya. I mean, unless Bernie realizes he can't win and drops out. I think it will depend on the money situation.
brainchild
Banned
Have you asked everyone how they've felt about this? Other minorities such as myself? Would you like me to interview my friends and family members and ask them how they feel about this? Maybe I'll have my brother (also a neogaf member) come into this thread and give his 2 cents.
When I'm telling you that you need to be careful about how you talk about people (particularly minority groups), that includes when discussing facts and data. It's not the facts and data in and of themselves that's being disputed, but how those facts and data are being presented, and how you reference the people associated with the data.
I'm am generally displeased with how minorities have been talked about when it comes to voting trends, because people are often reduced to their statistics, which shouldn't happen; they're still people. It doesn't matter if the data is true. You have to present it in a way in which there is a clear distinction between your words categorizing information about a person, and you words categorizing a person, and many times, when discussing demographics, there is no such distinction.
Yeah that's fair enough. More Super Tuesday polling would be nice and Rubio has been the choice for a lot of late breakers. He might outperform but I reeeaaally doubt he'll stay at pace with Trump on the delegate counts for ST. Again, what state is Rubio supposed to use to make up Trump's margins in MA alone? Somewhere in the south?
brainchild
Banned
Thankfully, you don't speak for all Hispanics, which is something I touched on in my original post!
So am I wrong to be worried that Trump winning the nomination isn't the greatest thing? That he has a much better shot of winning than anyone ever thought before?
I'm scared
Here's how I see it. A President Donald J Trump would be an embarrassment, sure. But we survived the embarrassment of George W Bush, and we could survive this one as well. And when you consider the alternatives on the Republican side, he seems like an absolute dream candidate.
Under President Cruz or Rubio (my hands are trembling trying to type that) Planned Parenthood is gone (ironically increasing the number or abortions happening in this country), a super conservative Supreme Court justice is nominated, and gay marriage becomes illegal again. I don't know that Trump cares about those issues.
He calls himself a "common sense conservative," a term that has become the most extreme oxymoron ever lately. But despite all the racist/xenophobic/hate speech stuff usually spewing from his mouth, I actually do think he has more common sense than Cruz or Rubio. It's a sad situation.
TLDR: If you told me we could have Trump vs Clinton where Trump has a 40% chance of winning, or Cruz vs Clinton where Cruz has a 10% chance of winning, I'm more comfortable with Trump on the ticket. A Cruz presidency scares the hell out of me.
Man, you'd have huge trouble in any political methodology class.. there is nothing remarkable about these discussions.
benjipwns
Banned
Yes, but look how close Sanders is. Really, everyone almost. With some tweaking you could probably make the two next to each other.
Most voters don't have a consistent ideological alignment. They cancel the differences out enough. A "pro-worker", pro-soak-the-rich, anti-trade, anti-immigrant, social moderate picks up enough points across the board to put Trump and Sanders in their orbit.
Elaugaufein
Member
Cruz isn't running for President anyway he's running for Anointed King. Wait was I trying to make you feel better ? I forget.
brainchild
Banned
Thank you for the insightful post.
cartoon_soldier
Member
The big thing on Super Tuesday for GOP is viability thresholds.
You're being overly emotional. I don't know what else to tell you.
Where do delegates go for candidates that don't hit these (read: Carson/Kasich's?)
Not sure how much these will ultimately matter. Will probably see the top 3 consistently clearing them.
brainchild
Banned
For starters, you could have refrained from personally attacking me with that post. It was completely unnecessary.
Officerrob
Banned
This coming from the guy who called people borderline racist for discussing voting trends
benjipwns
Banned
It has less than $2 million left. They'll probably just blow the cash so nobody else comes wanting it.
They don't get any.
Orbis Tabula
Member
So, question. How is RNC chairmanship decided? Because I'd have to imagine that the bigwigs in the Republican party can't be happy that Trump has managed to game this process so far, and I'm wondering if they'll look to Priebus as the guy they sacrifice after the election.
Youre literally arguing #notallmen. The idea that you have to preface every use of statiscal averages w a qualifier is inane and is an absurdly literal demand for something implicit in the discussion.
Everyone gets reduced to their statistics, because that is what statistics are meant to do. They make a large volume of data manageable and erase individuality.
Macho Madness
Member
Ted Cruz and Rubio are tied in delegate totals. That's super funny.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Really? CNN is telling me Cruz is up on him by one.
benjipwns
Banned
Balloting by the 168 RNC committee members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repub...Current_Republican_National_Committee_members
2009 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee_chairmanship_election,_2009
2011 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee_chairmanship_election,_2011
Priebus was re-elected basically unanimously in 2013 and 2015.
brainchild
Banned
That is a complete lie. Suggesting that something can be taken as borderline racism is not the same as suggesting that the people making those implications are borderline racist.
So Rubio could basically afford to not win a single one of those - as long as he stays above 20%, hoping others drop out next week.
Macho Madness
Member
As a straight white man, I am statistically more likely to vote for a Republican. But I'm also a millennial, which probably cancels that out. I wonder if there's stats on how white millennials (the oldest millenials first voted in 2000) tend to vote.
No one ethnic group is a monolith but there is a shared experience between them. There is a reason Black people overwhelming vote Democratic - Republicans time and time again enact policies or use language that is either directly harmful to Black people, routinely ignore and downplay the issues important to Black people and/or try to appeal to people who are racist towards Black people in ways Democrats (who aren't free of racism, lets be clear) can never hope or even try to achieve. There is a basic and consistent logic behind the differences in support.
A Black person who votes Republican isn't inherently a bad person, being an outlier isn't inherently a bad thing, but it runs counter to the voting logic of most people like them for very specific reasons. As such, they are an outlier - that's a fact and its not racially insensitive in anyway. Like you are just strictly wrong here. They don't represent the interests of their racial demographic and someone voting against their best inserts is something to be acknowledged but not condoned. This is of course assuming they are voting against their specific interests as individuals - "Fuck You, Got Mine!" is a mentality that transcends race, gender, age, etc. X on X ____ism also isn't a rare circumstance. There is also of course the fact that that not all Republican politicians are equivalent when it comes these issues - there are many local ones who are better able to serve the interests of their community than any local Democratic candidate.
In the end of the day, basic social sciences allows us the language to speak of individuals vs. groups and the rationales for their behavior. As a Black man myself, I just think you are incredibly off-base here and yes, I would say that these posts you've made on this subject make you seem thin-skinned. I have no qualms saying Black people who vote for Republicans on the national scale are voting counter to how most Black people vote. In fact, I'll go further - Black people who vote Republican on the national scale given the current presidential candidates, make up of the Republican Congress, the language they use, the polices they support and the manner they completely ignore many issues important to us are doing a disservice to the majority of Black people across the country. I can't relate as strongly to the Hispanic experience but I at least certainly feel comfortable saying the Hispanic voters who voted overwhelming for Trump in Nevada represent a small slice of Hispanic votes both in the State and in the country overall.
I can only assume your trepidation is because your cousins have gotten heat within the Black community for their views? Is that a fair assumption or am I off-base? Do you think this conversation is in the same vein as "all Black people are lazy" nonsense?
A) To the first point, I'm certainly not trying to throw shade on specific individuals I don't know at all. I'm sorry if your cousins have been thrown shade they don't deserve. Furthermore, not all Black Republicans are equivalent - I can respect and appreciate Micheal Steele while thinking Ben Carson is a piece of shit. However they just straight up don't vote in the same manner as most Black people. That doesn't make them bad people, that's just a fact. IF (and I'm not trying to say this is true since I don't know your family) the reason they are voting the way they are is for a "problematic" reason - like some of the ones I've already described - than they aren't immune to criticism.
B) As to the second point, this conversation is looking at the specific actions of people taken of their own free will, why they take them and how that compares to others like them. We aren't making prejudicial judgments on people based on immutable aspects of themselves (like skin color, facial features, hair, name, etc.) - we are only looking at their actions and rationale. I just don't plain see any comparison.
This conversation isn't borderline racist though. It's.....nothing.
gutter_trash
Banned
Cruz is more likely to gain a boost in Texas and send Rubio to 3rd
benjipwns
Banned
Not unless he wants to close the gap on Trump AND Cruz so the WTA's don't wipe him out.
"Afford" is too strong a word. It's essentially his only remaining strategy; that and prayer.
Macho Madness
Member
According to Pew by the way, it was 47-40 Republican when they did a survey last year.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Rubio's strategy is to basically play for a brokered convention and be nominated there after money changes hands a few times.
Macho Madness
Member
Looks like GOP turnout in Nevada was 75,000. That's up big from 2012. Democratic turnout was 85,000.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked