Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

The problem with the polichart map is that it assumes a 8 point new york victory

 

[superdeluxe]

Nate Dawg breaks down what Bernie would need to do to take the pledged delegate lead

Well Nate is right, Sanders will pretty much have to win everything.

 

[Maledict]

I take the same view as the West Wing to be honest. Those jobs are gone no matter what - the treaties in many ways are codifying the trends that already exist. Without vast protective tariffs, those jobs will shift overseas st some point, and we know that tariffs like that simply don't work.

There's also the fact that even when those jobs do stay here, or even come back from China, they no longer employ the same number of people. Several manufacturers have shifted facilities back from China for various reasons, but they only employ a fraction of the people now because of automation.

We in the west have to get used to being post-industrial societies. The UK is further down that road than any of the other big western economies, but ultimately it's where we will all end up. No-one seems to really have an answer on it, or even a half-way decent solution, but artificially trying to preserve manufacturing jobs just isn't going to work no matter what.

 

[superdeluxe]

The problem with the polichart map is that it assumes a 8 point new york victory

Well thats a bit more plausible than Nates. I mean if the exercise is to get Bernie more delegates, no area really you can go than into New York

12% victory in New Jersey..obviously neither pathways are realistic.

 

[brainchild]

The problem with the polichart map is that it assumes a 8 point new york victory

Yes, but Bernie doesn't really have a choice. He has to hit that target. However, that's much a better target than asking him to win several more states by +50 point margins, which is unnecessary and absurd.

 

[Diablos]

I miss Jon Stewart. Trevor Noah is okay but damn it's a shame Jon didn't stay on until the end of this year for one last election.

 

[Grief.exe]

I take the same view as the West Wing to be honest. Those jobs are gone no matter what - the treaties in many ways are codifying the trends that already exist. Without vast protective tariffs, those jobs will shift overseas st some point, and we know that tariffs like that simply don't work.

There's also the fact that even when those jobs do stay here, or even come back from China, they no longer employ the same number of people. Several manufacturers have shifted facilities back from China for various reasons, but they only employ a fraction of the people now because of automation.

We in the west have to get used to being post-industrial societies. The UK is further down that road than any of the other big western economies, but ultimately it's where we will all end up. No-one seems to really have an answer on it, or even a half-way decent solution, but artificially trying to preserve manufacturing jobs just isn't going to work no matter what.

Manufacturing jobs are permanently gone unless they are automated. Bringing those jobs back is an absurd argument that is laced with cognitive dissonance.

 

[Y2Kev]

The problem with the polichart map is that it assumes a 8 point new york victory

There are a lot of independent coffee shops in brooklyn

 

[brainchild]

There are a lot of independent coffee shops in brooklyn

Lol

Personally, I think he'll do well in Brooklyn. It's his home turf.

 

[Macho Madness]

I check Facebook today and

 

[syllogism]

It's certainly easier to make a more plausible looking map overall when you first assume that something completely inplausible (Sanders winning New York, let alone winning by 8) occurs. It definitely seems more plausible for him to win some of these other smaller states by 40-50% than him winning New York by 8, in particular considering it's in less than 3 weeks.

 

[brainchild]

I check Facebook today and

Wow

 

[StopMakingSense]

There are a lot of independent coffee shops in brooklyn

Revolutions! have started in coffee shops.

 

[Y2Kev]

538 said 3 people listened to their last podcast from a Nintendo wii. I thought of Daniel lol.

 

[Macho Madness]

538 said 3 people listened to their last podcast from a Nintendo wii. I thought of Daniel lol.

I love how catty Harry gets when talking about Bernie

 

[RustyNails]

I miss Jon Stewart. Trevor Noah is okay but damn it's a shame Jon didn't stay on until the end of this year for one last election.

He wouldnt have been able to handle the fuckery. Unlike Colbert who enjoys it. It looks like all the crazy shit affects Stewart petsonally lol.

 

[GregLombardi]

538 said 3 people listened to their last podcast from a Nintendo wii. I thought of Daniel lol.

wtf.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I am FINALLY playing through Xenoblade Chronicles Wii, allbeit from my Wii U's internal Wii emulator.

 

[superdeluxe]

I love how catty Harry gets when talking about Bernie

Is he the guy that keeps on telloing sanders supporters that it is over?

 

[pigeon]

Yes, but Bernie doesn't really have a choice. He has to hit that target. However, that's much a better target than asking him to win several more states by +50 point margins, which is unnecessary and absurd.

I dunno, I actually think Bernie is pretty likely to win several of those states by high margins. All of the states where Nate gave him a 40+ margin target are states where I think those are pretty plausible.

Fundamentally, though, I agree that the real question isn't really how high Bernie can run up the margin in Oregon, but how well he can do in New York and California.

Bernie's campaign has said their target in New York is -20. Even if they hit that goal, like, all of these paths to the nomination have to radically change at that point. I expect a lot more discussion of how liberal California is and how a 20 point Bernie margin there is plausible when that comes around, to be honest.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

538 said 3 people listened to their last podcast from a Nintendo wii. I thought of Daniel lol.

Lol

 

[superdeluxe]

For the longest time I swore up and down that I would not engage Sanders supporters who on my FB. I reached a boiling point when a Sanders supporter talked about how Undemocratic Super delegates were..but then wanted to use SAME undemocratic supers to go to Sanders even if Sanders does not get the pledged delegate lead.

That was my trigger lol. I had to bring in the whole idea of the caucus system and our conversation basically ended up in a stalemate (she went on to say the whole process is fucked)

I agreed and left the discussion.

 

[kingkitty]

i just can't believe that during a CNN town hall, Trump mockingly read Michelle Fields' statement out loud.

imagine 4 years of this for a Trump presidency.

 

[Hexa]

i just can't believe that during a CNN town hall, Trump mockingly read Michelle Fields' statement out loud.

That entire Town Hall with Trump was stupendous.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I take the same view as the West Wing to be honest. Those jobs are gone no matter what - the treaties in many ways are codifying the trends that already exist. Without vast protective tariffs, those jobs will shift overseas st some point, and we know that tariffs like that simply don't work.

There's also the fact that even when those jobs do stay here, or even come back from China, they no longer employ the same number of people. Several manufacturers have shifted facilities back from China for various reasons, but they only employ a fraction of the people now because of automation.

We in the west have to get used to being post-industrial societies. The UK is further down that road than any of the other big western economies, but ultimately it's where we will all end up. No-one seems to really have an answer on it, or even a half-way decent solution, but artificially trying to preserve manufacturing jobs just isn't going to work no matter what.

Manufacturing jobs are permanently gone unless they are automated. Bringing those jobs back is an absurd argument that is laced with cognitive dissonance.

Right. I appreciate that. I'd say I agree, from my limited understanding of the problem, at least. But I'm more interested in the general question than the specific example. Do we want a President who prioritizes global needs, or national ones? In some hypothetical where the USA can screw some of the 6.7 billion in order to benefit the 310 million, what should we want our President to do?

 

[Macho Madness]

That entire Town Hall with Trump was stupendous.

Look at how small those hands are

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm getting interviewed by all these people. My and my friends are famous for being millennial Hillary supporters (apologies to Y2Kev)

Edit: they're singing beyoncé #queen

 

[Macho Madness]

I'm getting interviewed by all these people. My and my friends are famous for being millennial Hillary supporters (apologies to Y2Kev)

Edit: they're signing beyoncé #queen

I thought you were voting Bernie in the primary.

 

[brainchild]

It's certainly easier to make a more plausible looking map overall when you first assume that something completely inplausible (Sanders winning New York, let alone winning by 8) occurs. It definitely seems more plausible for him to win some of these other smaller states by 40-50% than him winning New York by 8, in particular considering it's in less than 3 weeks.

In a vacuum it might seem that way, but the spacing of the contests have to be taken into account. New York is several weeks out, and there are not many contests for Sanders to pour resources into up to that point. This will give him plenty of time to work his ground game and concentrate his efforts and money all into one state.

I'm not saying it will be easy, but I think he could pull it off, and it's not something he could do in several favorable states to yield +50 margin victories.

I think people are forgetting that Bernie nearly won Illinois, and it was not expected for him to be anywhere near close to that until the polls were adjusted after the Michigan upset.

Bernie has been exceptional in recovering from 20-30 point deficits in the polls over the course of a few weeks, and it has always been due to hard work. I expect New York to be no different.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I thought you were voting Bernie in the primary.

He absenteed in FL for Hillary.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

That entire Town Hall with Trump was stupendous.

Trump would play yu-gi-oh

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I thought you were voting Bernie in the primary.

I voted for Hillary in Florida

 

[Macho Madness]

I voted for Hillary in Florida

Bernice Anders

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Trump really does have small hands. It's weird.

 

[brainchild]

I dunno, I actually think Bernie is pretty likely to win several of those states by high margins. All of the states where Nate gave him a 40+ margin target are states where I think those are pretty plausible.

Fundamentally, though, I agree that the real question isn't really how high Bernie can run up the margin in Oregon, but how well he can do in New York and California.

Bernie's campaign has said their target in New York is -20. Even if they hit that goal, like, all of these paths to the nomination have to radically change at that point. I expect a lot more discussion of how liberal California is and how a 20 point Bernie margin there is plausible when that comes around, to be honest.

The thing is, those ridiculous margins in the favorable states that he won weren't just handed to him. His campaign worked their asses off for those landslides.

Unfortunately, they no longer have the luxury of focusing on very favorable states. They need to laser focus on New York and California. There's no other way for him to win the nomination.

 

[Anoregon]

Bernice Anders

Does she know Ben Ghazi?

 

[B-Dubs]

In a vacuum it might seem that way, but the spacing of the contests have to be taken into account. New York is several weeks out, and there are not many contests for Sanders to pour resources into up to that point. This will give him plenty of time to work his ground game and concentrate his efforts and money all into one state.

I'm not saying it will be easy, but I think he could pull it off, and it's not something he could do in several favorable states to yield +50 margin victories.

I think people are forgetting that Bernie nearly won Illinois, and it was not expected for him to be anywhere near close to that until the polls were adjusted after the Michigan upset.

Bernie has been exceptional in recovering from 20-30 point deficits in the polls over the course of a few weeks, and it has always been due to hard work. I expect New York to be no different.

She hadn't been previously elected to the Senate by those states.

 

[Tom_Cody]

538 said 3 people listened to their last podcast from a Nintendo wii. I thought of Daniel lol.

I laughed out loud when I heard them mention that.

 

[Fenderputty]

I was hoping the predictit odds for a brokered convention would be better

 

[Box of Kittens]

In a vacuum it might seem that way, but the spacing of the contests have to be taken into account. New York is several weeks out, and there are not many contests for Sanders to pour resources into up to that point. This will give him plenty of time to work his ground game and concentrate his efforts and money all into one state.

I'm not saying it will be easy, but I think he could pull it off, and it's not something he could do in several favorable states to yield +50 margin victories.

I think people are forgetting that Bernie nearly won Illinois, and it was not expected for him to be anywhere near close to that until the polls were adjusted after the Michigan upset.

Bernie has been exceptional in recovering from 20-30 point deficits in the polls over the course of a few weeks, and it has always been due to hard work. I expect New York to be no different.

I admit I'm skeptical Sanders can go into New York and pull off a repeat of Illinois. It looks to me like the dramatic change in his numbers came from two things. The first is that Clinton's massive lead was probably something of an illusion to begin with. Illinois was sparsely polled until the week of the primary, at which time as you pointed out the polls had been adjusted to give more weight to independents. The second is that his attempts to tie her to Rahm Emanuel seemed to be effective enough to prevent her from running up the score too much in Cook County. I'm not sure what he could do that would be as effective in New York.

Then again from a strategic standpoint it's kind of moot. Sanders absolutely cannot afford a massive loss (or any loss really) in New York so he has to make a play for it.

 

[maabus1999]

In a vacuum it might seem that way, but the spacing of the contests have to be taken into account. New York is several weeks out, and there are not many contests for Sanders to pour resources into up to that point. This will give him plenty of time to work his ground game and concentrate his efforts and money all into one state.

I'm not saying it will be easy, but I think he could pull it off, and it's not something he could do in several favorable states to yield +50 margin victories.

I think people are forgetting that Bernie nearly won Illinois, and it was not expected for him to be anywhere near close to that until the polls were adjusted after the Michigan upset.

Bernie has been exceptional in recovering from 20-30 point deficits in the polls over the course of a few weeks, and it has always been due to hard work. I expect New York to be no different.

The problem is, and why the Sanders campaign has a goal of 40% of the vote, is that you can NOT switch your affiliation to Democrat for this primary since last October. That means the independent vote in NY is completely cut out, and Bernie has not really won with "registered Democrats" in any primary.

Only newly registered voters can still join in but that deadline is looming too.

Combine that with Sanders message may not resonate as well as other states(anti-Wall Street) and Clinton is a popular ex-Senator from the State, and you are looking at a death knell here without something drastic changing the entire campaign for Hillary.

 

[Jack Remington]

Kim Yuna was my favorite figure skater for a good while.

 

[Macho Madness]

The problem is, and why the Sanders campaign has a goal of 40% of the vote, is that you can NOT switch your affiliation to Democrat for this primary since last October. That means the independent vote in NY is completely cut out, and Bernie has not really won with "registered Democrats" in any primary.

Only newly registered voters can still join in but that deadline is looming too.

Combine that with Sanders message may not resonate as well as other states(anti-Wall Street) and Clinton is a popular ex-Senator from the State, and you are looking at a death knell here without something drastic changing the entire campaign for Hillary.

The deadline for new voters was this past Friday.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Haugland, however, argues that delegates are elected by fellow Republicans to exercise judgment on the convention floor, and should be free to vote as they please even on the first ballot. He said he intends to persuade the rules committee – as well as the convention delegates writ large -- to enact changes that would allow delegates to vote for any candidate who has earned a delegate in the 2016 voting.
“They’ve created these goofy, bogus primaries out of whole cloth,” said Haugland, who argues that conventions are largely irrelevant if the party’s delegates are meant to slavishly follow the results of primaries and caucuses.
But Haugland is unlikely to find much help in his quest. Freeing delegates would invalidate the months-long election season that all three campaigns have battled relentlessly to win.
“I would not favor changing the rules regarding binding” delegates to follow their state’s voters on the first ballot, said Wheeler. “That is a core concept of how we arrive at our delegates and how we translate the votes of the people to the nominee.”
Kading agreed, saying “I don't see Curly's suggestions getting much traction.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/republican-convention-rules-trump-cruz-221355#ixzz44Otf0r00

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Are there any "Republican" states that would split evenly between Cruz and Drumpf though? Or at at least enough to drag the each other down below Clinton?

For example, if you had Clinton take just 35% of the vote, and Cruz and Drumpf split the rest down the middle then Clinton would take it, right?

You could map out the possible math based on Obama 2012 results against the 2016 Republican primary results.

I'm positive that Mississippi would get split like that. And we're one of the few states that went for Goldwater. Obama lost MS by 140K votes, and I think you could get enough people to vote for Trump 3rd party to steal it from Cruz and give it to Clinton. The Gulf Coast is one of the Tea Party districts, so that'd work, and Hillary could count on some really high turnout in the Delta (super African-American).

 

[i_am_ben]

Does she know Ben Ghazi?

Shes a distant relation of Berniedict Arnold.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Making signs

 

[gcubed]

The problem with the polichart map is that it assumes a 8 point new york victory

the problem with the polichart map is that its even less likely then Nates map. PA, NJ, NY wins are all laughable

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'm positive that Mississippi would get split like that. And we're one of the few states that went for Goldwater. Obama lost MS by 140K votes, and I think you could get enough people to vote for Trump 3rd party to steal it from Cruz and give it to Clinton. The Gulf Coast is one of the Tea Party districts, so that'd work, and Hillary could count on some really high turnout in the Delta (super African-American).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Mississippi,_1996
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Mississippi,_1992

nope.

 

[Box of Kittens]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/republican-convention-rules-trump-cruz-221355#ixzz44Otf0r00

Even the RNC has to be smart enough to know they couldn't extend the middle finger to their voters that blatantly without repercussions.

 

[Daniel B·]

This could be just the "NY slice" Bernie's been salivating over .

MILWAUKEE – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday welcomed Hillary Clinton’s agreement to debate him in New York before the state’s April 19 primary election.
“Let’s do it,” Sanders said on CNN.
After her campaign opposed a New York debate for over a month, Clinton told reporters at a campaign stop in La Crosse, Wisconsin, that she was open to the idea of debating Sanders in Brooklyn.
The Sanders campaign hailed the development as a victory for Democratic voters everywhere and for New York voters in particular.
The Clinton campaign’s earlier position was that the April debate agreed upon by both campaigns should be held after the New York primary. In recent days, one Clinton operative suggested the debate might not happen at all if Sanders did not change his “tone.”
The Sanders campaign has consistently pushed for a debate in New York to be held prior to the April 19 primary election.