-
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 |OT2| we love the poorly educated
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Literally pry one family and they caucus in their house.
Yeah....that's a tall order. And yet, it's the best I think the GOP can hope for at this point.
Well, he was selective and blanketed the airwaves in the places most likely to be receptive to his message. I'd expect this type of strategic bombardment to continue.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I'm sorry. After Bernie lost the south so badly and Hillary got the endorsement of a Black minister of my precinct, I didn't know what to do.
I honestly still don't understand why Hillary is better than Bernie for black people, but as a white voter in a 40% white precinct, it felt wrong to go against the grain of minority voters.
Can you imagine being a Republican in extremely rural Alaska?
I'm proud of you, gays.
This tracks.
User 463088
Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
So, if Trump wins the nomination, will a lot of white nationalist candidates win congressional primaries in 2018 (which turn into congressional seats as it will probably be a midterm wave against Hillary)?
Tanks for all the gays in Provincetown!
I'm proud of you, gays.
Retromelon
Member
DANIEL B HAS COME BACK TO US
Did you ever make it to east fartucky
Did you ever make it to east fartucky
Jack Remington
Banned
So Trump dominated, but instead of my shares going up, I'm down over $200. People are weird.
My biggest issue with the Bernie argument is turn out. Even for the work he has done with getting younger voters energized, turn out has been a loss sans a select few states. Even if you want to factor 08 being the outliner, for the platform sanders claims to be leading it hasn't been showing.
It surprises me at times given the fundraising machine sanders has built...
Much less losing in key voting demographics for democrats... Assuming these voters just come with the territory has led to defeat for the party before.
It surprises me at times given the fundraising machine sanders has built...
Much less losing in key voting demographics for democrats... Assuming these voters just come with the territory has led to defeat for the party before.
shinra-bansho
Member
So, I commented on this earlier. But while he won across the board, I don't know if I'd completely call it dominating. I think he's very likely the nominee.
But I would imagine Cruz's stock shot up after today.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Rubio won 3 more delegates than Trump in Minnesota, momentum finally happening. Obviously deserves a bump.
Nope! It was Rubio that's going up.
*Literally anything, usually something bad for Rubio, happens* "This is good news for Marco Rubio."
And_Gignac
Member
RastaMentality
Banned
Cruz went down to 7 cents and Rubio's at 12. Doesn't make much sense.
Now that you mention it:
This should worry Clinton, too.
Well, it's a bit different. She's not really running a contested race like in 2008.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
If I understand correctly it sounds like tonight wasn't quite as good as expected for Donald Trump, but still very good for Donald Trump, and tonight wasn't quite as good as expected for Hillary Clinton, but still very good for Hillary Clinton
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm not sure where the whole "not as good as expected for Clinton" is coming from.
She didn't sweep, so maybe it's just that I guess.
Well, then who knows what's going on in betting people's heads.
She didn't sweep, so maybe it's just that I guess.
Well, then who knows what's going on in betting people's heads.
I think so, but if you had told me that these would be the results before South Carolina (on both sides), I would have been surprised.
Officerrob
Banned
What exactly is the argument for "not as god as expected for Clinton"? Sure, she lost a couple of toss-up states, but she destroyed her polling projections in the south which more than offsets that
And_Gignac
Member
Both Sanders and Clinton overperformed. Expectations were low for Sanders after Nevada / SC, though.
The GOP numbers, I mean. They are terrifying
The GOP numbers, I mean. They are terrifying
Fenderputty
Banned
That slim Pickens comment from a republican had me rolling. This nuke is dropping. I'm curious if more jump on as he becomes a more sure thing
That Chrisitie pick was hilarious
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
It's honestly sad how a party this incompetent and fractured still managed to dominate local and house elections for the last 6 years:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tariniparti...icans-are-furious-with-john-kasich#.cp16DW75E
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tariniparti...icans-are-furious-with-john-kasich#.cp16DW75E
Sanders thought he could win 5 states, lost a state in his backyard that he overspent Clinton in, and got decimated in the delegate-rich South. That overperforming?
User 463088
Banned
Welcome to being a Hillarystan.
There can never be a good night for Hillary Clinton.
Her margins in Texas are just insane. She's currently netting 74 delegates more than Bernie.
And_Gignac
Member
He overperformed in the places he won.
Clinton was ahead by 7 points in Massachusetts average of polls. He narrowed it down to less than 2.
But he didn't win Massachusetts, and failed to win big in any state that is going to net him delegates to even come close to closing the gap that he needs to.
He needed a better night to stay viable. He didn't.
I think (here at least) expectations for her shot sky-high after South Carolina. Some people thought her margin there meant a big shift towards her, but it seems like it was either mainly in the black community or that they were underrepresented in polling. Any of her supporters would have been ecstatic for these numbers a week ago.
Officerrob
Banned
I kinda want Cruz to win Alaska, just because "Fuck Palin"
Yeah, us South Carolinians spoiled you guys. Sorry. =(
But I do find it funny how much people are championing that he "beat expectations" when the expectations being referred to were literally a worst case scenario for him.
eBay Huckster
Member
Two hours later: this still approximately the case?
User 463088
Banned
Bernie managed to meet his 538 targets in Vermont.
So far, that's it. Saying he narrowed it down, ergo he over performed means the only metric he needs to meet is outdoing his polling. That's just not the case.
And_Gignac
Member
He wasnt expected to win Massachusetts, but he did better there than most pollsters expected and in every single state he won. Thats the definition of overperforming.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Doesn't matter as long as it's not to Rubio. The more Cruz wins the better. You have to keep things split up.
Yeah, it looks like he does.
He also didn't win Massachusetts and should've done better given its proximity to Vermont, its demographics, and the targeted ad campaign and money that Bernie put into the state. That's underperforming.
This was a terrible night for Sanders.
shinra-bansho
Member
What he needed to do and what he was expected to do are two different things.
He didn't perform what he needed to do. He needed to sweep the five states that he was spending all his time and money in, which had very good demographics for him. He only managed to get 4 out of 5.
But he outperformed some expectations leading into today. The final poll out for MA had a two point margin, although that misses the point really that the margin in polls is subject to error anyway. He did well in white caucus states, something we already know. For the most part there was limited info on the states he did well in leading in.
Clinton did what she needed to do, and then some - i.e. winning MA. She needed to hold him close enough in the white caucuses that her losses wouldn't matter - ymmv on if she did that. But she didn't need a sweep of everything but VT, it just would have been a good way to put it all to bed. She also outperformed what she was expected to do in the south.
He didn't perform what he needed to do. He needed to sweep the five states that he was spending all his time and money in, which had very good demographics for him. He only managed to get 4 out of 5.
But he outperformed some expectations leading into today. The final poll out for MA had a two point margin, although that misses the point really that the margin in polls is subject to error anyway. He did well in white caucus states, something we already know. For the most part there was limited info on the states he did well in leading in.
Clinton did what she needed to do, and then some - i.e. winning MA. She needed to hold him close enough in the white caucuses that her losses wouldn't matter - ymmv on if she did that. But she didn't need a sweep of everything but VT, it just would have been a good way to put it all to bed. She also outperformed what she was expected to do in the south.
Basileus777
Member
It costs Trump the 12 bonus delegates for winning the state so it's not insignificant.
And_Gignac
Member
The scientific expecations, aka polls, expected Clinton to win by 7-11 points. She did by 2. Dont be obtuse. Sanders path for the nomination effectively ended in Nevada, that doesnt mean he didnt outperform polls today.
He outdid his 538 targets in Colorado and Oklahoma, and kept the numbers for Minnesota. He was trashed in the South though, but that was expected after South Carolina.
Rubio did "better" than his poll numbers in Virginia, yet still lost and took a devastating blow to his candidacy when expectations were super high for him to come away with more than 1 state win. He didn't. I don't consider that over performing for a night on the whole even if he did better than expected in certain states, because his path to the nomination is over.
Fine, maybe your right by your definition of overperforming that Bernie overperformed in some limited states. That doesn't mean that he overperformed for the night on the whole. He lost a moral victory in Massachusetts and could not compete with Clinton outside of his main demographics, something we've thought could happen for months.
shinra-bansho
Member
You should probably provide an accurate reflection of the range of margins that February polls had, if you're going to try and make a point. Since, you know. It's really not hard to find.
Some of this is psychology. Some of it is math.
No question, this was a bad math night for Bernie, but it was good for morale. Many of his supporters expected much worse. Enthusiasm was starting to wane, and the bottom had started to fall out of his poll numbers.
I think there's a good chance that trend reverses after tonight, at least a little bit. I can tell you that the mood in the online Bernie communities has improved considerably based on tonight.
Basileus777
Member
This is a pretty shitty thing to say. It's similar to any number of disgusting rants from the other side about the people who have chosen to vote for Hillary.
He just became mathematically unable to win the nomination. He lost what should have been one of the friendliest states to him even a month ago. How would that trend even start to reverse?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked