Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

New York Primary Poll / Sienna College

Clinton: 55 percent
Sanders: 34 percent

Trump; 34 percent
Rubio:16 percent
Cruz: 16 percent
Christie: 11 percent
Bush: 7 percent
Kasich: 4 percent

48% of New York voters (Rep + Dem) believe Hillary will win the presidency.

And a 25-71 favorable/unfavorable rating for Trump. In his home state.

 

[Y2Kev]

I'm not.

The talk of the last month has been that he doesn't actually have much of a ground operation in NH (or anywhere else). I don't see any reason to think that he will over-perform above his poll numbers.

That said, I have no idea where he'll end up.

Like Iowa?

 

[kingkitty]

If Rubio gets 1st in NH, I will knock down a magazine rack.

 

[Makai]

I like the theory that Trump will make Mexico pay for the wall by eliminating its $1 billion in foreign aid. So obvious, too! I thought he was going to threaten to cut off trade or something.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I like the theory that Trump will make Mexico pay for the wall by eliminating its $1 billion in foreign aid. So obvious, too! I thought he was going to threaten to cut off trade or something.

We give $200M a year to Mexico and maintaining the wall would cost $750M a year.

 

[Makai]

We give $200M a year to Mexico and maintaining the wall would cost $750M a year.

$971 in 2014.

Edit: Aw, shit. Wikipedia goofed. 2011!

$560 in 2013 which is the latest date available.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD

 

[B-Dubs]

So his plan on how to get them to do it is somehow even dumber than the plan itself? Why is this not surprising?

 

[teiresias]

Like Iowa?

Well, the thing with Iowa is that the caucus system helped him in the way he distributed his limited ground game. I doubt a regular primary will allow a limited ground game to be as effective.

 

[Iolo]

I get that, but participating in a debate, no matter how good a candidate is, always leaves one open to risk of a bad moment.

I'm probably being a bit too cautious, but probably because I still think she has this in the bag once Tuesday is over.

You're more confident than her campaign then as she's now shifting massive resources to caucus states to try to prevent a repeat of 2008.

 

[B-Dubs]

You're more confident than her campaign then as she's now shifting massive resources to caucus states to try to prevent a repeat of 2008.

Better to try and stop him early than to let this turn into a grind to the convention.

 

[Holmes]

SourShoes is back.

 

[Iolo]

Better to try and stop him early than to let this turn into a grind to the convention.

Completely agree, there just seem to be a lot of people thinking she "has it in the bag" because she's way ahead in primary states. It may turn into a grind regardless. Certainly there will be a ton of money wasted.

 

[User 463088]

SourShoes is back.

Yay!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The vast majority of foreign aid we send to Mexico is to fight the war on drugs in Mexico (which kills a great deal of people per year in Mexico). Sounds like something people would be supportive of cutting in the era of suburban white kids being addicted to heroin.

 

[gutter_trash]

Guess sixteen percent of Republican voters are ashamed of their New York Values.

upstate New York are not real New Yorkers

 

[Plinko]

Wouldn't it be much cheaper and more effective to utilize the National Guard on the border as part of their training?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

We could pay for the wall for stealing remittance money from Mexican Americans that they send to their poor families.

Sounds like a good investment, steal from minorities sending to the poor to build a pointless fucking wall.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Completely agree, there just seem to be a lot of people thinking she "has it in the bag" because she's way ahead in primary states. It may turn into a grind regardless. Certainly there will be a ton of money wasted.

of course its going to be a grind. Mathematically she won't get rid of him till later April at the earliest.

 

[B-Dubs]

Completely agree, there just seem to be a lot of people thinking she "has it in the bag" because she's way ahead in primary states. It may turn into a grind regardless. Certainly there will be a ton of money wasted.

Even if it turns into a grind she'll still probably win, this is just about her team wanting to shift focus to defining the GOP candidate as quickly as possible instead of having to deal with Bernie for weeks on end.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I wish so much that I were in New Hampshire right now. I would just go to every Rubio townhall and ask "Senator Rubio, what do you think of the notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing?"

 

[Cesare Borgia]

You're more confident than her campaign then as she's now shifting massive resources to caucus states to try to prevent a repeat of 2008.

Seems more about saving face. Hillary Clinton doesn't struggle with caucuses because of a lack of spending or organization. She loses them because they're held in states that tend to support candidates like Sanders or Obama, the outsiders with broad support across ideological lines.

Hillary should focus on blowing out Sanders in big states. Losing Montana's caucus doesn't matter to anyone except Sanders' supporters.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Seems more about saving face. Hillary Clinton doesn't struggle with caucuses because of a lack of spending or organization. She loses them because they're held in states that tend to support candidates like Sanders or Obama, the outsiders with broad support across ideological lines.

Hillary should focus on blowing out Sanders in big states. Losing Montana's caucus doesn't matter to anyone except Sanders' supporters.

that did not work in 08.......

The idea is not necessarily to win but to get as many delegates out of them as possible.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

that did not work in 08.......

The idea is not necessarily to win but to get as many delegates out of them as possible.

She was running against a good campaign and good candidate in 08. Sanders is only going to challenge her in caucus states and small state primaries. Obama was viable nearly everywhere in 08.

I don't think Hillary should be complacent...however I think it's also good to acknowledge what Sanders is and isn't.

 

[And_Gignac]

I am more convinced now that Sanders has exposed critical weakness in Clinton as a candidate. I am not that sure she can win the generals considering the anti-establishment hunger the electorate seems to have.


Anyway, look at this gem from Salon, in April 2008:

Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!
Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary.

http://www.salon.com/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/


heheh.

 

[Macho Madness]

The Cake Boss endorsed Christie. CHRISTIEMENTUM

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

.@realDonaldTrump touts waterboarding & adds "@tedcruz was very queasy on whether or not he liked it"

..........................................

Hmm, it's interesting to see a guy that just revels in how awful he is.

https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/696716282469752832

 

[Effect]

that did not work in 08.......

The idea is not necessarily to win but to get as many delegates out of them as possible.

This. The gold should be to stop Sanders from winning a majority of delegates in those states while winning and hopefully by larger margins in the primary states. This way she gets the majority of the delegates going into the convention the clear winner.

What I wonder is how much can she run up the numbers in a place like SC. The bigger the better. Especially if it gets people talking about the demographics of the other states that better represent the country at large.

She was running against a good campaign and good candidate in 08. Sanders is only going to challenge her in caucus states and small state primaries. Obama was viable nearly everywhere in 08.

I don't think Hillary should be complacent...however I think it's also good to acknowledge what Sanders is and isn't.

I agree Sanders is not Obama. Never was and won't be no matter how many times people try to push that comparison. Best not to take chances though. Better to try and over perform if possible. Especially you could lock things up early delegate count and narrative wise and allow for the pivot to the general much sooner.

 

[thcsquad]

Seems more about saving face. Hillary Clinton doesn't struggle with caucuses because of a lack of spending or organization. She loses them because they're held in states that tend to support candidates like Sanders or Obama, the outsiders with broad support across ideological lines.

Hillary should focus on blowing out Sanders in big states. Losing Montana's caucus doesn't matter to anyone except Sanders' supporters.

That's an accurate description of her 2008 strategy.

 

[Tom_Cody]

Like Iowa?

Is your argument that he is a magic candidate who will always outperform polls, just because he did in Iowa?

The story the media missed coming out of Iowa is just how much money Rubio spent on advertising leading into Caucus night. People seem to not realize this, but he even outspend Cruz by more than 50%.

https://morningconsult.com/briefs/campaigns-brief-how-to-watch-the-iowa-caucuses/

With this late ad blitz he was able to distinguish himself from the other "establishment" candidates (lol at Jeb!'s Iowa spending though). This scenario will not occur in New Hampshire where Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and Christie have been ever-present in the state for months.

I could be wrong, but I don't see a clear reason to think that Rubio will out-perform his poll numbers. We now have ample post-Iowa polling data and any bounce he had coming out of there will have shown up in the latest numbers.

 

[FiggyCal]

I am more convinced now that Sanders has exposed critical weakness in Clinton as a candidate. I am not that sure she can win the generals considering the anti-establishment hunger the electorate seems to have.


Anyway, look at this gem from Salon, in April 2008:



http://www.salon.com/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/


heheh.

Hillary Clinton is doing just fine, though. So it seems like the dems aren't really anti-establishment as you're suggesting.

 

[Makai]

Jeb should have called Trump a loser at the debate. Could have had an interesting reaction.

 

[FiggyCal]

Jeb should have called Trump a loser at the debate. Could have had an interesting reaction.

"You can't bully your way to the presidency, Jeb"

 

[Teggy]

That's amazing that Jeb didn't have to spend a dime in Iowa. Nope, not coordinating with the SuperPac at all, no sir!

 

[Roland_Gunner]

The story the media missed coming out of Iowa is just how much money Rubio spent on advertising leading into Caucus night. People seem to not realize this, but he even outspend Cruz by more than 50%.

Sweet Jesus, Clinton and Sanders combined for $20M in ads. Thats insane. Spending that much money in Iowa is hard to do!

 

[WaffleTaco]

Honestly I expect Rubio to be 2nd...I think the 3-2-1 strategy could also turn out in his benefit. Sure Donald Trump's "supporters" are vigorous and enthusiastic, but if they do not turn out in big numbers for New Hampshire, than I think his lead will drop...very hard. Most reasonable people think that Trump is ridiculous, this is including among Republicans (I am citing my dad, who likes Rubio the most and Sanders for being genuine). I also think the Sanders could not be as well received as people might think he will be...but this is just due to myself being more skeptical of polls since Iowa.

 

[Effect]

Hillary Clinton is doing just fine, though. So it seems like the dems aren't really anti-establishment as you're suggesting.

Also wouldn't this anti-establishment push equal anti-Obama and I don't really see dems as a majority (and I don't mean just 51% but a lot more) being anti-Obama or what he's able to have gotten done. There is no way those people are any under any illusions that he could have gotten more while seeing what he had to deal with. At least I hope they don't. I believe that would require a insane amount of people to have a complete disconnect from reality of what was really happening.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Wish I could have done more for the NH Primary thread but I was out straight this weekend canvassing. Most of it was done Friday.

 

[gutter_trash]

Jeb is going to do better in NH than what the polls were suggesting.

He may overtake Rubio in NH

 

[FiggyCal]

We'll see Kasichmentum and the press will frame it as "a return of the establishment" despite the fact that Donald Trump will win and two different candidates both anti-establishment will have won two different states (which is really a sign of weakness).

 

[Iolo]

Seems more about saving face. Hillary Clinton doesn't struggle with caucuses because of a lack of spending or organization. She loses them because they're held in states that tend to support candidates like Sanders or Obama, the outsiders with broad support across ideological lines.

Hillary should focus on blowing out Sanders in big states. Losing Montana's caucus doesn't matter to anyone except Sanders' supporters.

You might consider reading the article. Strong showing in caucus states can award large numbers of delegates.

 

[NeoXChaos]

You might consider reading the article. Strong showing in caucus states can award large numbers of delegates.

exactly.

In 2008, Clinton learned the hard way that winning all of the delegate-rich primary states like Ohio, Texas and Florida was not enough to secure the nomination. With his team of Chicago operatives, Barack Obama cleaned up in smaller states where it was possible to build up huge margins of victory and amassed delegates for a relatively small expenditure of resources — even as Clinton was dominating the big primary states.
Obama’s ability to win 15 delegates in Idaho, for example, to Clinton’s 3, netted him 12 delegates. And even though Clinton won by 10 points in Ohio — a state that pledged 141 delegates awarded proportionally and where Mook served as Clinton’s state director that cycle — the campaign netted only a paltry nine delegates for all of the hard work of organizing a big state.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...to-stop-sanders-momentum-218926#ixzz3zaz8olPI

 

[Metaphoreus]

I've been a lazy citizen this term; what are the major Supreme Court cases this term? I know about the redistricting case, but what others?

Among others (issue descriptions taken from SCOTUSblog):

Bernard v. Minnesota: The Drunk-Driving-Test Case: Issue(s): Whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.

Evenwel v. Abbot:The One-Person, One-Vote Case: Issue(s): Whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population, when apportioning state legislative districts.

Fisher v. University of Texas: The Affirmative Action Case: Whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association: The Public Unions Case: Issue(s): (1) Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Committee: The Redistricting Case: Issue(s): (1) Whether the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justifies intentionally creating over-populated legislative districts that results in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the one-person, one-vote principle; and (2) whether the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permits the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle, and, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, whether this is still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder.

McDonnell v. United States: Appeal by Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell of His Corruption Conviction: Issue(s): Whether “official action” under the controlling fraud statutes is limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley: The Blaine Amendments Case: Issue(s): Whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses when the state has no valid Establishment Clause concern.

U.S. v. Texas: The Immigration Case: Issue(s): (1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3.

Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt: The Texas Abortion Case: Issue(s): (1) Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest.

Zubik v. Burwell & Related Cases: The Little Sisters of The Poor/RFRA Cases: Issue(s) (generally): Whether the HHS contraceptive-coverage mandate and its “accommodation” violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, when the government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest.

Others can chime in if I omitted any.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I am more convinced now that Sanders has exposed critical weakness in Clinton as a candidate. I am not that sure she can win the generals considering the anti-establishment hunger the electorate seems to have.


Anyway, look at this gem from Salon, in April 2008:



http://www.salon.com/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/


heheh.

Well her weaknesses are her connections to wallstreet and campaign financing. And Bernie brought this issue up at every single opportunity, where as I doubt any other candidate would have or did before in her office runs. I just don't think this alone is enough to overcome her

It's like a level 42 Blastoise going against a level 71 charizard. Sure he's getting his hits in and they are super effective, but her level is just overall too high to win the battle

 

[Cesare Borgia]

You might consider reading the article. Strong showing in caucus states can award large numbers of delegates.

Right. I'm saying the amount of money spent is not going to be the deciding factor. I think Iowa showed that Hillary's flaws go well beyond simply not knowing rules (2008) and overcome having organizational or money advantages (2016).

This year her camp is a lot more knowledgeable and will do what they have to do...and she's facing a campaign with little understanding of things. I'm more apt to believe Clinton will virtually tie Sanders in delegates in a lot of small caucus states while blowing him out elsewhere.

 

[User 463088]

Seems more about saving face. Hillary Clinton doesn't struggle with caucuses because of a lack of spending or organization. She loses them because they're held in states that tend to support candidates like Sanders or Obama, the outsiders with broad support across ideological lines.

Hillary should focus on blowing out Sanders in big states. Losing Montana's caucus doesn't matter to anyone except Sanders' supporters.

That is the absolute last thing she should do. It was the 2008 strategy and it was a colossal failure. While Bernie is not Obama, he has the...fervent supporters to stay in the race even after it's clear (ie Super Tuesday) that he will not be the nominee. He's not going to drop ou just because it's unlikely that he'll win. He'll stay in until it's mathematically impossible for him to win.

Hillary will net huge delegates from the big states, but she's also going to make sure that she doesn't get the shit kicked out of her in the smaller caucus states. She knows this will take a while. She learned that the hard way in 2008. Her organization wasn't prepared to go 30-40 states deep. She is this time.

 

[Tom_Cody]

Honestly I expect Rubio to be 2nd...I think the 3-2-1 strategy could also turn out in his benefit. Sure Donald Trump's "supporters" are vigorous and enthusiastic, but if they do not turn out in big numbers for New Hampshire, than I think his lead will drop...very hard. Most reasonable people think that Trump is ridiculous, this is including among Republicans (I am citing my dad, who likes Rubio the most and Sanders for being genuine). I also think the Sanders could not be as well received as people might think he will be...but this is just due to myself being more skeptical of polls since Iowa.

He's polling second, so I'd say that's the most likely outcome. I think Trump will be in first with 25-30, and then there is going to be a scrum with Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Cruz, and Christie all getting ~10-20%.

The things I will be watching for will be to see if Trump gets above 30%... or ~25%. If he gets above 30% he will have performed to the level of his poll numbers and he can reasonably continue to call himself the clear front-runner in the national race. If he gets ~25% he will have under-performed his poll number again, and it will be hard to shake the narrative that he will never get a majority of republicans. The race will become about republican voters picking the non-Trump who will actually become the nominee.

The other thing I will be watching for will be to see if any of the non-Trumps can get above 20%.

 

[PBY]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/republicans-obama-defense-spending-218847

The administration will push for some of the same weapons it had earlier dismissed as not needed. This seems like a really bad look for Barack.

 

[Coriolanus]

Because i do think that there might be people that understand webdesign/it stuff here:
I just noticed that my country has no politifact equivalent. Which sounds like an opportunity. Would any of you know if one could (hire someone competent to) develop something like that but smaller (and with a less hideous interface) on a 50-60k budget?

It's like a level 42 Blastoise going against a level 71 charizard. Sure he's getting his hits in and they are super effective, but her level is just overall too high to win the battle

More of these sorts of analogies! (just plz limit yourselves the the original pokemons [and mudkips because why not] so i can understand them without having to google/feeling old...er)

 

[cartoon_soldier]

No new Superbowl ads apart from Jeb calling on George?

 

[Cheebo]

I am noticing a lot of the conservative media is proclaiming Rubio was in the right and it is just the liberal media attacking him out of Rubio. Some serious circling of the wagons going on.