Support NeoGAF

[Rubenov]

Cruz is the only one with a campaign worth a damn.

Trump doesn't do ads / has little staffers ... he just flies in the Trump jet and gives speeches.

Trump losing both Oklahoma and Alaska to Cruz is just him having a sloppy campaign apparatus.

Marco is kind of disorganized as well.

 

[And_Gignac]

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.

Well, months ago no one expected him to win anything besides NH and Vermont so we are way past that level of expectations I guess, lol.

He was done for after Nevada and expectations were really low for him. He didnt have a comeback or anything, he just did a little better in the places he won. Thats my whole point.

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.

I was looking at RCP. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...tts_democratic_presidential_primary-3891.html

6.7 average, with the last poll they listed at +11 for Clinton.

 

[Dalthien]

Sanders path for the nomination effectively ended in Nevada, that doesnt mean he didnt outperform polls today. .

He might have outperformed some state polls, and got crushed in some others. Forget the state-by-state vagaries though - in the only metric that really matters, most of the prognosticators were saying that if she had a strong night tonight, Hillary would be up by about 150-ish delegates after tonight. It looks like that number will be in the 200-ish range instead. So she not only managed to get her very strong performance, but exceeded it by a lot.

Bernie was hoping to keep it to about a 150 delegate deficit if he had a poor night. He failed that target big time. That's under-performing badly in the only metric that really matters.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Another one!

The only demographic Bernie won was white men. He lost everything else. He lost Latinos by 34 points. He lost women by a bit more than that. Basically, if it weren't for white men he wouldn't be a viable candidate.

Where'd you get these numbers from?

 

[Basileus777]

Cruz is the only one with a campaign worth a damn.

Trump doesn't do ads / has little staffers ... he just flies in the Trump jet and gives speeches.

Trump losing both Oklahoma and Alaska to Cruz is just him having a sloppy campaign apparatus.

Marco is kind of disorganized as well.

I wonder if Trump is going to lose most of these closed state caucuses coming up to Cruz. He's dropped the ball on every caucus other than Nevada.

 

[Holmes]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:...dential_primaries_results_by_county,_2012.png

There's a reason why Obama got <60% in OK, AR, LA, WV and KY in the 2012 primaries. And in Oklahoma, one of his "opponents" was a pro-life activist who's been arrested 40 times.

Come on.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Oh, in clown car news since I'm not sure anyone's noticed...

But Cruz is up in Alaska.

 

[Krowley]

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?

I'm saying many of his supporters don't see things that way. As for a reversal, I'm saying Bernie may begin to climb in the polls again, and closing gaps in upcoming states.

I'm not saying this means Bernie's gonna catch her. I'm just saying that there's a chance he might be able to make this thing even closer, and drag it out longer than most were anticipating. I think he's gonna keep winning states all the way down the line. And I'm, also saying this was probably Hillary's best day.

If she'd beat him in 8 or 9 out of 10, his support would've dried up.

 

[Officerrob]

Some worthless, but kinda interesting Super Tuesday facts:

Hillary and Trump were the only people to win a county in Alabama

Ben Carson got more votes in Alabama than Bernie did

Bernie won one county in Georgia, 36 votes to 32

Trump was over 40% in every county in Mass (he obviously won them all)

Bernie was over 80% in every Vermont county

 

[Hazmat]

Honestly Melkr you can have Oklahoma, bunch of racist conservadems who voted against Clinton to send a message to Obama.

Come on, that's bullshit. Sanders does pretty well with white voters across the board. Are they all just trying to send a message to Obama?

 

[HUELEN10]

So I am a bit out of the loop and overwhelmed, yet I gotta ask...

How did my man Carson end up doing?

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm saying many of his supporters don't see things that way. As for a reversal, I'm saying Bernie may begin to climb in the polls again, and closing gaps in upcoming states.

That's not the narrative coming out of this night. The narrative is that the election is over. That's is mathematically impossible for Bernie to compete with Clinton. And that's it's time for Clinton to look towards the GE.

That's coincidentally also the case.

 

[brainchild]

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?

FALSE. None of Clinton's future victories are assured, so you cannot just assign her delegates on the assumption that she wins by presumed margins. Projections can change, and as long as it's POSSIBLE for those projections to change in Bernie's favor, it's not mathematically impossible for him to win.

We can consider it mathematically impossible for Bernie to win when any remaining victories that hypothetically go to him do not yield enough delegates to win the nomination, which won't be happening for a while.

 

[And_Gignac]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:...dential_primaries_results_by_county,_2012.png

There's a reason why Obama got <60% in OK, AR, LA, WV and KY in the 2012 primaries. And in Oklahoma, one of his "opponents" was a pro-life activist who's been arrested 40 times.

Come on.

It seems that Oklahoma is where the original Bernie/Trump supporter was created.

 

[Officerrob]

I'm saying many of his supporters don't see things that way. As for a reversal, I'm saying Bernie may begin to climb in the polls again, and closing gaps in upcoming states.

Closing gaps doesn't matter at this point, he has to dominate several big delegate states

 

[ivysaur12]

FALSE. None of Clinton's future victories are assured, so you cannot just assign her delegates on the assumption that she wins by presumed margins. Projections can change, and as long as it's POSSIBLE for those projections to change in Bernie's favor, it's not mathematically impossible for him to lose.

We can consider it mathematically impossible for Bernie to win when any remaining victories that hypothetically go to him do not yield enough delegates to win the nomination, which won't be happening for a while.

Fine, let me rephrase for the pedantic:

Given the demographic trends and polling that we've witnessed over 15 states that have yielded sufficient data, it would be a historic and unprecedented event that would lead Bernie to the nomination, something that does not seem possible given Clinton's dominance in the South.

There are no delegate rich states left, given what we know about each's supporters' demographics, that could yield enough delegates to close a growing deficit.

 

[Holmes]

I'm not going to linger on it but if you really think the white conservative Democrats in Oklahoma who voted for a pro-life activist against Obama in the 2012 primary fell in love with Sanders' socialist policies then ok.

 

[Krowley]

Closing gaps doesn't matter at this point, he has to dominate several big delegate states

And in order to do that, he would have to start closing gaps first, correct?

Fine, let me rephrase for the pedantic:

Given the demographic trends and polling that we've witnessed over 15 states that have yielded sufficient data, it would be a historic and unprecedented event that would lead Bernie to the nomination, something that does not seem possible given Clinton's dominance in the South.

There are no delegate rich states left, given what we know about each's supporters' demographics, that could yield enough delegates to close a growing deficit.

To some extent, for Bernie this will become a waiting game to see if she makes a disastrous mistake. He needs to keep winning wherever he can, just in case that happens.

And he will be trying to change poll numbers in various demographics.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Trump losing Alaska is a downer...

 

[ivysaur12]

Trump losing Alaska is a downer...

He's only 1.4% down now.

 

[Officerrob]

And in order to do that, he would have to start closing gaps first, correct?

Sure, but time isn't on his side. There are big states coming up (Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Illinois)

 

[And_Gignac]

We will get a March Surprise. Just y´all wait.

Clinton is D-O-N-E.

Sure, but time isn't on his side. There are big states coming up (Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Illinois)

Ya. And he is losing all of them by double digits margins.


Honestly he has done more than enough. Any win from now on will just be a plus for his historic campaign.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Sure, but time isn't on his side. There are big states coming up (Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Illinois)

and with the exception of Ohio, Clinton leads by 20+ in each

 

[pigeon]

We will get a March Surprise. Just y´all wait.

Clinton is D-O-N-E.

If you are a PD puppet, this is a better schtick than last time around. I'm a fan.

 

[Ekai]

I'm not going to linger on it but if you really think the white conservative Democrats in Oklahoma who voted for a pro-life activist against Obama in the 2012 primary fell in love with Sanders' socialist policies then ok.

You pushed this idea though.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The main issue on the minds of Alaska voters tonight was, as you'd expect, border security:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-matters-most-to-super-tuesday-voters/

What a country we live in.

 

[ivysaur12]

And in order to do that, he would have to start closing gaps first, correct?


To some extent, for Bernie this will become a waiting game to see if she makes a disastrous mistake. He needs to keep winning wherever he can, just in case that happens.

And he will be trying to change poll numbers in various demographics.

He tried to change his demographic strengths for months. It didn't help!

 

[Rubenov]

He's only 1.4% down now.

Large population centers are breaking in big numbers for Cruz. Donald this is what having a campaign on the ground can do for you.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Large population centers are breaking in big numbers for Cruz. Donald this is what having a campaign on the ground can do for you.

Trump's campaign is a joke which is another reason it's incredible that he's going to win pretty easily.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

The main issue on the minds of Alaska voters tonight was, as you'd expect, border security:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-matters-most-to-super-tuesday-voters/

What a country we live in.

And yet Trump is struggling there. I'm beginning to think the only reason Trump isn't doing better in some of these places is because the "he's secretly liberal" stuff is working a little bit.

 

[Holmes]

You pushed this idea though.

And if everyone is just going to say "that's bullshit" then there's not much of a discussion. I made my point. No one countered it. I'm not de-legitimizing Sanders' win here. The pieces fell into place for him. It will be the same in West Virginia and probably Kentucky.

 

[Krowley]

He tried to change his demographic strengths for months. It didn't help!

Not gonna argue with that. He wasted money in the SC IMO. The more he tried, the more the AA voters turned against him. Not sure what he could've done differently, but his strategy didn't work at all.

Still, I'm just saying. His supporters feel like his campaign still has a heartbeat tonight, and many didn't expect to.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Now that you mention it:

This should worry Clinton, too.

I think Texas' numbers are swapped. No way Democrats have gotten 2.9m votes in their Democratic Primary...

He also didn't win Massachusetts and should've done better given its proximity to Vermont

Mass is nothing like VT. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they really don't like each other. "Massholes" are a commonly hated group up here, and down in MA everyone assumes I'm a giant (possibly gay) hippy when I tell them I'm from VT.

From what I heard a lot of Unions in the Boston Area endorsed Clinton early and stuck with her--which made it really difficult. Sanders had to try and spend a lot more than Clinton to steal voters in the expensive Boston-area from her--which was very difficult.

 

[Hazmat]

I'm not going to linger on it but if you really think the white conservative Democrats in Oklahoma who voted for a pro-life activist against Obama in the 2012 primary fell in love with Sanders' socialist policies then ok.

And if you want to believe that these people that you're angry at for being so conservative and racist voted en masses for a socialist secular Jew over a Christian woman who once accepted a job from a black man then ok.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I think Texas' numbers are swapped. No way Democrats have gotten 2.4m votes in their Democratic Primary...

No, there really were that many votes.

 

[ivysaur12]

Not gonna argue with that. He wasted money in the SC IMO. The more he tried, the more the AA voters turned against him. Not sure what he could've done differently, but his strategy didn't work at all.

Still, I'm just saying. His supporters feel like his campaign still has a heartbeat tonight, and many didn't expect to.

Then his supporters can't see that his campaign has no realistic path towards the nomination. There will be no gap to be closed, because as will be rightfully reported, this race is realistically over.

Mass is nothing like VT. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they really don't like each other. "Massholes" are a commonly hated group up here, and down in MA everyone assumes I'm a giant (possibly gay) hippy when I tell them I'm from VT.

From what I heard a lot of Unions in the Boston Area endorsed Clinton early and stuck with her--which made it really difficult. Sanders had to try and spend a lot more than Clinton to steal voters in the expensive Boston-area from her--which was very difficult.

I'm from New England, I get how it works, but when Bernie was hitting the NH airwaves hard and winning, he was up in Mass. It's white, it's educated, it's progressive -- those are his demographics! And yet.

 

[brainchild]

Fine, let me rephrase for the pedantic:

Given the demographic trends and polling that we've witnessed over 15 states that have yielded sufficient data, it would be a historic and unprecedented event that would lead Bernie to the nomination, something that does not seem possible given Clinton's dominance in the South.

There are no delegate rich states left, given what we know about each's supporters' demographics, that could yield enough delegates to close a growing deficit.

That's fine, but that doesn't even mean that it's virtually impossible for him to win, it just means that it's unlikely for him to win.

Bernie has faced the worst of it in terms of unfavorable states, and he'll be running in states with much more favorable demographics in the coming weeks. Considering that these primaries won't be crowded into one day, his resources to compete in these states won't be spread as thin.

He doesn't necessarily need to win a few delegate rich states by large margins. He just needs to win lots of states with moderate amounts of delegates by moderate margins. If he can repeat what he did in MN and CO, but in many more favorable states, he can close the deficit (theoretically).

And yes, I'm being pedantic (I don't expect Bernie to get the nomination), but I'm always pedantic when it comes to the facts.

 

[Ekai]

And if everyone is just going to say "that's bullshit" then there's not much of a discussion. I made my point. No one countered it. I'm not de-legitimizing Sanders' win here. The pieces fell into place for him. It will be the same in West Virginia and probably Kentucky.

But they did counter it. You even point out the ridiculousness of your argument in the post I quoted.

 

[ivysaur12]

That's fine, but that doesn't even mean that it's virtually impossible for him to win, it just means that it's unlikely for him to win.

Bernie has faced the worst of it in terms of unfavorable states, and he'll be running in states with much more favorable demographics in the coming weeks. Considering that these primaries won't be crowded into one day, his resources to compete in these states won't be spread as thin.

He doesn't necessarily need to win a few delegate rich states by large margins. He just needs to win lots of states with moderate amounts of delegates by moderate margins. If he can repeat what he did in MN and CO, but in many more favorable states, be can close the deficit (theoretically).

And yes, I'm being pedantic (I don't expect Bernie to get the nomination), but I'm always pedantic when it comes to the facts.

I find pedantry beyond annoying, so you're going to have to bear with me when I say that it's highly, highly unlikely that Bernie can win the nomination, knowing what we know about their supporters.

 

[Holmes]

And if you want to believe that these people that you're angry at for being so conservative and racist voted en masses for a socialist secular Jew over a Christian woman who once accepted a job from a black man then ok.

She's repeatedly attacked Sanders for calling Obama disappointing, saying he wanted to primary him in 2012 (the primary in which many of them voted against him or stayed home!) and has made it very well known that she wants to continue his policies. These are literally the people that people laugh at and mock for being Obama birthers and value voters. But like I said, if you think that conservative Democrats in Oklahoma (many in rural areas) voted for Sanders because of his socialist policies, have at it boss.

 

[brainchild]

I find pedantry beyond annoying, so you're going to have to bear with me when I say that it's highly, highly unlikely that Bernie can win the nomination, knowing what we know about their supporters.

That's fine. I would even agree

 

[eBay Huckster]

That's fine, but that doesn't even mean that it's virtually impossible for him to win, it just means that it's unlikely for him to win.

Bernie has faced the worst of it in terms of unfavorable states, and he'll be running in states with much more favorable demographics in the coming weeks. Considering that these primaries won't be crowded into one day, his resources to compete in these states won't be spread as thin.

He doesn't necessarily need to win a few delegate rich states by large margins. He just needs to win lots of states with moderate amounts of delegates by moderate margins. If he can repeat what he did in MN and CO, but in many more favorable states, be can close the deficit (theoretically).

I mean, theoretically, he can run up the score in (most of) the 11 remaining caucuses between now and June 14th - but in practice, he probably doesn't have enough time to swing the primaries between now and March 15th, and at that point you start needing absurd wins across the board the rest of the way.

(That and he's probably not winning the caucuses of the GREAT COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS)

 

[ivysaur12]

That's fine. I would even agree

Who are you, Daniel

 

[Maledict]

If you count pledged and Supers:

Hillary 1001
Bernie 371

She has a 630 delegate lead. She has 42% of the delegates that she needs to win the nomination.

The things is, on this one issue sanders fans are right. The super delegates aren't going to override the pledged delegates from the primary process to put someone else in power. They wouldn't do in 2008, they won't do it now.

It's why Clinton should happily agree to get rid of them if that's one of Sanders demand
for his support. They don't work anymore and can't do what they are suppossed to do - it's inconceivable that they would override the winner of the election process, and they just lead to friction and rancour in the party.

 

[brainchild]

I mean, theoretically, he can run up the score in (most of) the 11 remaining caucuses between now and June 14th - but in practice, he probably doesn't have enough time to swing the primaries between now and March 15th, and at that point you start needing absurd wins across the board the rest of the way.

(That and he's probably not winning the caucuses of the GREAT COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS)

I agree. I'm only speaking in hypotheticals.

Who are you, Daniel

Lol

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Haha, Kasich above Rubio in MA

 

[neurosisxeno]

No, there really were that many votes.

Jesus. So voter turnout was literally half this time around? What the hell happened???

I'm from New England, I get how it works, but when Bernie was hitting the NH airwaves hard and winning, he was up in Mass. It's white, it's educated, it's progressive -- those are his demographics! And yet.

It's also hardcore establishment-friendly. Clinton had a leg-up early on, so Sanders had to try his hardest to win--and ended up with essentially a tie, which really isn't bad.

 

[Basileus777]

The things is, on this one issue sanders fans are right. The super delegates aren't going to override the pledged delegates from the primary process to put someone else in power. They wouldn't do in 2008, they won't do it now.

It's why Clinton should happily agree to get rid of them if that's one of Sanders demand
for his support. They don't work anymore and can't do what they are suppossed to do - it's inconceivable that they would override the winner of the election process, and they just lead to friction and rancour in the party.

It's not Hillary's decision as to whether superdelegates exist.

 

[adamsappel]

And in Oklahoma, one of his "opponents" was a pro-life activist who's been arrested 40 times.

Come on.

Obama lost 40% of the 2012 West Virginia primary vote to a sitting felon and by 41 points to Hillary in 2008. I'm originally from WV and most of my Democratic FB friends seem to be for Bernie, but it ultimately won't matter as WV has the highest percentage of Trump support in the country.

 

[ivysaur12]

It's also hardcore establishment-friendly. Clinton had a leg-up early on, so Sanders had to try his hardest to win--and ended up with essentially a tie, which really isn't bad.

He was up, and then he wasn't, and then he lost. His campaign built up expectations and spent a lot of money there. He should've won.