• 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 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hazmat

Member
Boney said:
They're talking about the super delegates undermining votes and say it's a rigged system. The DNC guys are like yeah but thems the rules because the 60's or something. The point about voter disenfranchisement is real (even if Bernie is losing in total votes in this case) and super delegates are pretty bs, but the graph can be misrepresentative. Winning by over 10 points and tying in delegates is also kinda dumb though even if 1 delegate is basically nothing.
Click to expand...

It's not disenfranchising anyone. A certain amount of delegates have been set to be decided by the results of the statewide contests, and others haven't been. No one is taking a vote away from anyone.

Also, any argument of superdelegates taking any of the power in the selection process away from the people is without merit until they do it, which no one credible thinks they would ever do. I'll agree that this means that they should be done away with, they really have bearing on the state of the race.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
blackaroni said:
Hillary is a power hungry socialite now?
oPj9CqX.gif
Click to expand...
What is she saying in this?
Always wondered
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Ex-ante determined rules on how delegates are assigned that nevertheless treat all votes that are cast as equal and do not impact the possibility of going to the polls cannot be disenfranchisement, by its very definition.

We can discuss that the rules themselves should change, but it doesn't have much to do with the revocation of the right to vote in any way.


Edit: The above pertains to the division of WI delegates despite majority breakdowns, and not superdelegates!
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Iolo said:
Nonsense. Please explain how Bush/Rubio would be winning if they were running in the Dem system, and relate that winning to party bosses.

edit: Jeb Bush, who was routinely receiving 3% in the polls and at the ballot box, would somehow be winning. Jeb Bush.
Click to expand...

I suspect Trump may have not entered to begin with if he knew that 20% of the delegates would not vote for him, and that plurality victories didn't get disproportionate wins.

Also, many of the superdelegates on the Democratic side are the local party heads and folks who wield immense local power. They could organize the local parties to go after Trump and Cruz, in terms of spending money and canvassing, etc etc. Jebis probably too weak of a candidate (except for fundraising, dear lord), but Rubio or Kasich may have gathered a stronger base to start from and would have a much stronger case at a contested convention.

Also - the GOP primary process, having multiple winner take all states and winner take most states - led itself wide open to a candidate winning ~44% of the delegates with 34% of the votes. Something that can't happen on the Dem side due to pure proportionality.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-would-be-easy-to-stop-under-democratic-rules/

Because of GOP rules, candidates are incentivized to act state by state rather than on a national basis, and that was a big reason it took so long for the GOP to realize they needed to gang up on Trump. Every candidate was thinking "I can try to win this state, and let everyone else beat up on Trump and Cruz".

Macho Madness said:
How do you figure that? Superdelegates? How would Trump not be as far ahead as Clinton is?

To me, the Dem primary system is showing that an early lead is basically impossible to overcome but if you can convince people to keep giving you money then it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Superdelegates + pure proportionality. See the 538 article linked above.

Dem primary incentivizes GOTV (Caucusing) and national policy debate (pure proportional delegates) along with being a little cynical about populism as well as an eye on establishment types (high % of super delegates to stop any Trump like figure as well as empower local / national party leaders rather than pure voters).
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
sphagnum said:
TBH I feel like if Bernie had done this for some godawful reason we'd have already had a thread about it in OT and everyone in here would be screaming about it, but because Hillary did it's ok to ignore.
Click to expand...


Soooo I'm bored and did some cursory research.

There have been about 90 Bernie-related threads made since the beginning of the year, and about 70 Hillary-related threads (with several overlapping threads).

Well more than half of the Bernie threads are pro-Bernie, though there are a significant number of critical ones too, and perhaps more noticeably, a run of them recently.

The Hillary threads are more evenly split, although I counted more that were clearly critical or anti-Hillary than clearly supportive.

In short, they've both had lots of threads made about them from both sides. Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Slayven said:
Is figuring out how Bernie can win the new Sudoku?
Click to expand...

No, because Sudoku is actually solvable with a solution.

Hazmat said:
It's not disenfranchising anyone. A certain amount of delegates have been set to be decided by the results of the statewide contests, and others haven't been. No one is taking a vote away from anyone.

Also, any argument of superdelegates taking any of the power in the selection process away from the people is without merit until they do it, which no one credible thinks they would ever do. I'll agree that this means that they should be done away with, they really have bearing on the state of the race.
Click to expand...

Superdelegates were designed with the idea of stopping something like Trump as well as forcing any candidate to not try to win the primary by going purely regional for votes and going with policy ideas that were DOA in a general election; IIRC.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Soooo I'm bored and did some cursory research.

There have been about 90 Bernie-related threads made since the beginning of the year, and about 70 Hillary-related threads (with several overlapping threads).

Well more than half of the Bernie threads are pro-Bernie, though there are a significant number of critical ones too, and perhaps more noticeably, a run of them recently.

The Hillary threads are more evenly split, although I counted more that were clearly critical or anti-Hillary than clearly supportive.

In short, they've both had lots of threads made about them from both sides. Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing.
Click to expand...


Thank you for doing this :)

"Perceived slights" has been one of the running themes of this campaign season, it seems.

Do you have the actual numbers in hand to share, by chance?
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
OH MY GOD, is Grassley a dumbass?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...sley-sky-wont-fall-one-less-justice/82794878/

The Senate’s power to withhold consent is as much a part of the Constitution as the president’s power to nominate. It’s also not unlike the president’s power to veto a bill Congress presents him, as the president has done nine times, or the many veto threats he’s made on measures that Congress hasn’t even passed. The Senate’s decision regarding the court vacancy is constitutional. It will help safeguard the integrity of the court. It’s common sense. And, it’s entirely American.
Click to expand...
 
U

User 406

Banned
sphagnum said:
TBH I feel like if Bernie had done this for some godawful reason we'd have already had a thread about it in OT and everyone in here would be screaming about it, but because Hillary did it's ok to ignore.
Click to expand...

I gotta admit, I did cringe hard.


hawk2025 said:
Veep is a more important TV show than The West Wing.
Click to expand...

The West Wing is awful masturbatory horseshit. Every scene excited liberals link where Bartlet totally rips right wingers a new asshole with piercing rhetoric just gives me a rash. It's "yeah, that's what we should have said!" with a budget.


Holmes said:
So far the bumper and laptop sticker primary is

Hillary 100%
Bernie 0%
Click to expand...

Earlier I reported that I've seen one Hillary sticker and like a dozen Bernie stickers. Thing is, all the Bernie stickers were on one vehicle, I shit you not, all around the sides and even on the hood.

Kind of a good metaphor for the primary, come to think of it.


B-Dubs said:
I thought mine would be fine for my lifetime, but there it is. I mean, if you can replace writers then everyone's screwed at some point.
Click to expand...

We're not screwed, we're freed. Properly allocating social wealth is the real problem, not the elimination of the need for labor.
 
J

Joe Shlabotnik

Banned
hawk2025 said:
Thank you for doing this :)

"Perceived slights" has been one of the running themes of this campaign season, it seems.

Do you have the actual numbers in hand to share, by chance?
Click to expand...

I just searched "hillary" and "bernie" in thread titles.

93 for Bernie, 70 for Hillary (since January)

It looked like 20 or 30 clearly critical Bernie threads to me, the rest positive or neutral. A similar number for Hillary but she also has fewer threads overall so the split is much closer to even.

But overall they've just both had a bunch of threads made about them both positive and negative.
 
H

Holmes

Member
Sea Manky said:
Earlier I reported that I've seen one Hillary sticker and like a dozen Bernie stickers. Thing is, all the Bernie stickers were on one vehicle, I shit you not, all around the sides and even on the hood.
Click to expand...
Sounds like bumper sticker fraud. I'm going to report it.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Finished reading the Daily Mail Clinton interview.

Speaking of cognitive bias, I know I have quite a lot here, but...


Damn, that was impressive. Very, very impressive.

Her plan on public college funding based on income is so much better than the incentive-wrecking setup of free public college for all that Sanders has right now.



Edit: Daily Mail, lol
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
RustyNails said:
New thread?
Click to expand...

Nah, I could tell you exactly how it would go. I admit I laughed when I got to the part about the Metlife case.

ivysaur12 said:
OH MY GOD, is Grassley a dumbass?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...sley-sky-wont-fall-one-less-justice/82794878/
Click to expand...

Yes, yes he is.

Sea Manky said:
We're not screwed, we're freed. Properly allocating social wealth is the real problem, not the elimination of the need for labor.
Click to expand...

That implies we're going to get it right immediately. I have a feeling it's going to advance far faster than we're willing to move on it.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
hawk2025 said:
Finished reading the Daily Mail Clinton interview.

Speaking of cognitive bias, I know I have quite a lot here, but...


Damn, that was impressive. Very, very impressive.

Her plan on public college funding based on income is so much better than the incentive-wrecking setup of free public college for all that Sanders has right now.



Edit: Daily Mail, lol
Click to expand...

I know, right?

Jesus H Christmas. She's so FREAKING smart. Like. So smart. Drives me crazy. I wish I was half that smart about important shit.
 
S

Sianos

Member
Macho Madness said:
I just got a sneak peek at a national poll coming out tomorrow and I now want Cruz to be the nom
Click to expand...

I think it's happening too - Trump is falling behind his projections that already fell short of 1237 and has so far continued to fuck up delegate matters before whining to Twitter about how unfair it is. He seems to be in an awkward defense mode, and I don't think he'll make up more ground.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.

There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.
Click to expand...

11b4fbef-9782-459e-86dc-2d392741ddd7.gif
 
H

hawk2025

Member
The transcripts answer is, as always, kinda shitty though.

But the policy questions are all pitch-perfect IMO.

If Clinton can double down on Obama's path of spearheading and supporting an evidence-based policy agenda, and have the group of experts that can make that happen with the budget to actually estimate, calculate, and utilize data to find such evidence, we can make a whole lot of progress in short order. Exciting.
 
D

dramatis

Member
Daily News: Get excited about your college plan now.

Clinton: Yeah, I'm very excited about my college plan.

Daily News: Make me understand it.

Clinton: Yeah, okay. Well, the best way to do that...

Daily News: I better have something to drink.

Clinton: Yes, something stronger maybe.
Click to expand...
lol
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Daily News: Can I just get a quick parochial question in about New York that will fall into your lap?

Clinton: About a what deal?

Daily News: A parochial--

Clinton: A parochial. Okay, I thought you said pieroga, which is a Polish...

Daily News: Corruption in New York has been rampant.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
A

ApharmdX

Banned
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Soooo I'm bored and did some cursory research.

There have been about 90 Bernie-related threads made since the beginning of the year, and about 70 Hillary-related threads (with several overlapping threads).

Well more than half of the Bernie threads are pro-Bernie, though there are a significant number of critical ones too, and perhaps more noticeably, a run of them recently.

The Hillary threads are more evenly split, although I counted more that were clearly critical or anti-Hillary than clearly supportive.

In short, they've both had lots of threads made about them from both sides. Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing.
Click to expand...

308 threads for Donald Trump since the beginning of the year (just did a quick search). LOL. 308!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom