Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

Bernie has only won one closed contest and that is OR. He will lose the next and final one NM. NJ is semi-closed.

 

[Dan]

There's some absolutely appalling and trite Millennial stereotyping going on in here. It's hardly surprising they don't vote if this is the attitude people hold towards them; the contempt is pretty vile.

Pro tip: I am a millennial. Just not an entitled moron.

The contempt is for Bernie's spoiled child psychology.

 

[Macho Madness]

I'm actually very deeply unconvinced by the argument caucuses favour Sanders. I think it is an artifact of the data produced by the fact that the caucuses have mostly taken place in small white post-industrial states that are very favourable towards Sanders anyway; Cohn's argument didn't really extend beyond "look at map, Sanders won caucuses" but that was never a surprise in the first place. Sanders didn't do any noticeably better than his polling in most of these states, and did somewhat worse in a few. Prima facie, one would expect Clinton to do better at caucuses - they're rather confusing and archaic events with a strong degree of process that can be quite hard to understand if you don't have some experience with them; you would expect the candidate with better Democratic support to do better in caucuses than the candidate with better Independent support, which in this case is Clinton over Sanders.

The other confounding factor is that most of the caucuses were much more open than the primaries, and Cohn is making the assumption that any improved Sanders performance is down to the caucus structure and not the open aspect when there's very little evidence to suppose that specifically and again strong prima facie reasons to suppose instead that Sanders would be benefited by an open system more than anything else (given his predominance among Independent voters). Obviously we can't test this, but I'd put reasonable money on Sanders actually having slightly more delegates in the hypothetical world where every caucus state was converted to an open primary.

And no, the Washington beauty contest doesn't count. It had absolutely no consequences and Sanders had already won the caucus, of course his voters couldn't be bothered compared to Clinton ones looking to salvage some dignity. You can't extrapolate from something that was nothing but a gimmick to the real thing.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth.

 

[B-Dubs]

It's hard to say.


I think for his base it doesn't matter like at all to them, and might have just made Clinton look dirty and afraid.

What it would have done is tanked Sanders in those GE Polls but probably tanked her too.

That's basically what I figure, it would have looked like a bully picking on a little kid, but I sure as hell would have had a good laugh along the way.

 

[Y2Kev]

A lot of what he said in the interview seemed reasonable to me. None of those quotes seemed reasonable to me.

No there's not. There's just Dan.

Kristoffer, it is not unreasonable to say "I HAVE A SHOT AT WINNING CALIFORNIA"

I'm not a moron who thinks omg the polls are even now!!! because there was one close poll, but he has a shot at winning California the same way you have a shot at me banning you for being the smartest poster on the board second to me.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

C'mon Nacho Sadness, Crab has a point.

 

[excelsiorlef]

There's some absolutely appalling and trite Millennial stereotyping going on in here. It's hardly surprising they don't vote if this is the attitude people hold towards them; the contempt is pretty vile.

That's an odd jump.... I mean young people just don't vote period, never have, never will, this is true of every generation.

 

[Y2Kev]

Most old people don't vote either!

 

[excelsiorlef]

C'mon Nacho Sadness, Crab has a point.

He has a few there were periods at the end of his sentences after all.

I mean caucuses favour Sanders because they're bully affairs with low turn out.

 

[B-Dubs]

That's an odd jump.... I mean young people just don't vote period, never have, never will, this is true of every generation.

Well, they did in 2008. Let's be fair.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Your last statement is complete and total speculation on your part. In 2008, there were two beauty contest primaries in caucus states that Obama won (Washington and Nebraska). Obama won both the caucus and the primary. In 2016, Bernie won the caucus in each state, but Hillary won both primaries.

There is, literally, zero evidence to support Bernie would have done even better in a caucus-less system that is transitioned to an open primary. In fact, the data points we have suggest that's not even close to being true.

Hillary won more open primaries than Bernie did. In fact, Bernie has won more closed primaries than he has open ones as of April. Caucuses have consistently made him appear way more viable than he actually is.

None of this actually responds to my points. Your entire argument basically comes down to "Sanders did well in caucus states" - well sure, because he was always expected to do well in caucus states. They're states like Iowa and Washington, they're typically small, white, rural and post-industrial. That's natural Sanders territory, he would have won them regardless. If he'd done surprisingly well in the caucuses of a state with a relatively high number of minorities, you might have a point - but the only caucus in such a state was Nevada, really, where Sanders moderately underperformed his polling, so the data is not there. The supporting data is not "did Sanders do well in caucus states" because that observation is riddled by selection bias; it's "did Sanders do better in caucus states than he would have done if they were primaries?". We can't actually say conclusively, because we can't observe that world, but we have strong prima facie reasons to suppose that is not the case.

 

[User 463088]

Most old people don't vote either!

We should offer them butterscotches and knitting supplies to vote for Queen.

And move all the voting locations to nursing homes. Or somthing.

 

[Macho Madness]

None of this actually responds to my points. Your entire argument basically comes down to "Sanders did well in caucus states" - well sure, because he was always expected to do well in caucus states. They're states like Iowa and Washington, they're typically small, white, rural and post-industrial. That's natural Sanders territory, he would have won them regardless. If he'd done surprisingly well in the caucuses of a state with a relatively high number of minorities, you might have a point - but the only caucus in such a state was Nevada, really, where Sanders moderately underperformed his polling, so the data is not there. The supporting data is not "did Sanders do well in caucus states" because that observation is riddled by selection bias; it's "did Sanders do better in caucus states than he would have done if they were primaries?". We can't actually say conclusively, because we can't observe that world, but we have strong prima facie reasons to suppose that is not the case.

Maybe we don't really know the earth is round either. After all, it's just data.

 

[Holmes]

There's some absolutely appalling and trite Millennial stereotyping going on in here. It's hardly surprising they don't vote if this is the attitude people hold towards them; the contempt is pretty vile.

Maybe if they would wash the cheeto dust off their fingers and not smell of marijuana

 

[excelsiorlef]

Well, they did in 2008. Let's be fair.

Sort of.

Their turnout in terms of percentage of the electorate was actually smaller than it was in 84, 88 and 92.

And that's with 18-29 on it's way (at the time, it is now) the largest bloc of potential voters

What was huge is the amount by which they voted for Obama.

 

[whyamihere]

I think the best example of how caucus states benefit Sanders is actually Wyoming -- Hillary was non-viable in some precincts in Laramie County until the absentee vote came in and she ended up winning the county.

I also don't think you can throw away the Nebraska and Washington primaries as "beauty contests", especially Washington's, had a bigger turnout than 08. Yes, if it was competitive, both campaign would have, you know, campaigned, but the fact that the turnout was significantly and the margin was that much lower should give you pause on both the validity of caucuses and Bernie's strengths in these caucus states. Especially since it was an all mail-in ballot and people didn't really have to do anything to vote.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Maybe if they would wash the cheeto dust off their fingers and not smell of marijuana

Fine by me, Wotsits are the far better marijuana complement anyway.

 

[HylianTom]

Bob Dole, pushing the Dream Ticket:

"I put a plug in for Newt Gingrich" to be Donald Trump's VP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IS2TYLdq6Q

YES YES YES!

PLEASE!

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

We should offer them butterscotches and knitting supplies to vote for Queen.

And move all the voting locations to nursing homes. Or somthing.

Hillary will be out with small McDs coffees taking old people to voting booths.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Well, they did in 2008. Let's be fair.

Eh, sorta. They turned out more, but were a marginally larger share of the vote from say, 2004 to 2008.

 

[B-Dubs]

Bob Dole, pushing the Dream Ticket:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IS2TYLdq6Q

YES YES YES!

PLEASE!

This would be the best thing ever.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Bob Dole, pushing the Dream Ticket:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IS2TYLdq6Q

YES YES YES!

PLEASE!

Oh good, since the Clintons are somewhat shady (or perceived as such) lets just pick the shadiest guy imaginable in politics who left his cancer ridden wife on her deathbed because she wouldn't share him.

 

[Y2Kev]

I mean, it's not really just Cohn making the argument. 538 has a similar piece up now.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think the best example of how caucus states benefit Sanders is actually Wyoming -- Hillary was non-viable in some precincts in Laramie County until the absentee vote came in and she ended up winning the county.

Again, this is also unsurprising. The absentee vote is overwhelmingly old people, I think something like 70% of the absentee vote on average is people over the age of 65+. Given Clinton wins that demographic by such big margins, you'd expect the absentee vote to end up flipping results fairly frequently. I would be interested to see a primary-caucus analysis of the absentee ballot, though - you're right that it's relatively consistent between primaries and caucuses, so you could actually do some proper data analysis. I might look into that when I've finished my thesis/stopped posting in GAF to procrastinate from finishing my thesis.

EDIT: Does anyone know a site that lists results with absentee and postal ballots disaggregated from the main results?

 

[HylianTom]

GREAT movie.

 

[B-Dubs]

Oh good, since the Clintons are somewhat shady (or perceived as such) lets just pick the shadiest guy imaginable in politics who left his cancer ridden wife on her deathbed because she wouldn't share him.

A guy who has had three wives, divorcing one while she had cancer.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

GREAT movie.

Thank you. It was my first film.

 

[HylianTom]

Thank you. It was my first film.

I still call my sister on the phone from time to time at night, just to say, "YOUUUU'VE BEEEN BAAAAAAAD.."

 

[blackw0lf]

Naw, sorry. This ain't RuPaul's best friend race. This is politics. Hillary's people have been more than accommodating to let Bernie run until the end. Hell, she said something to that effect a week ago, that she ran until the end and totally understands.

She needs 73 delegates to get to 2383. I don't think she'll roll out enough Supers to secure before the 7th. New Jersey will put her over the top when they close at 8:00pm EST. Bernie will be mathematically eliminated from the nomination at 11:00pm EST.

There's no risk of pissing anyone off, other than the people who are going to be pissed off no matter what. She'll want to give a speech in prime time.

Imagine this scenario.

Hillary wins New Jersey and passes the 2383 number. She goes on TV and declares herself the nominee.

Then by some incredible fluke Sanders wins California 80%-20%, and ends up passing Hillary in pledged delegates. if that happened, supers when would then flock to Sanders and he would be the nominee. Hillary's claim would have been incorrect, because at the time of her saying it Sanders was not mathematically eliminated.

Now will that happen? Of course not. There's a bout a .0005% chance of such a scenario happening. But the point is until Sanders is truly mathematically eliminated. saying you are the nominee is premature, because super delegates can always switch to whoever ends up with the pledged majority.

There is absolutely no harm in Hillary waiting until Sanders is completely mathematically eliminated from the race to declare herself the nominee, by waiting for California to roll in. Once it does, and she passes the pledged delegate majority, there is going to be absolutely no question, except from the craziest of crazies, that she's the nominee.

Robert Reich for example says there's still a slim chance Sanders can win. And he's right. Again it's a super super slim chance, but there is. Until that chance is completely eliminated, which will happen once the vote in California comes in, she should hold off. Again because it will help with party unity, and help in defeating Trump. Which is the goal.

 

[Crocodile]

Absolutely. I mean I had people calling for my head when I made that Planned Parenthood thread. It's sad that someone who could have bern a force for good isn't but vindication is the perfect word for how I feel.

Good News: DNC stood by Frank and co
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9a3...s-fails-oust-clinton-backers-convention-roles

Good, I would have lost a lot of respect for the DNC if they caved

God I feel dirty saying that Paul is right on point. No one talking about this is hilarious

Memorial Day Weekend is going to bury a lot of this news I feel

 

[Y2Kev]

I mean it's also possible Hillary could say she is the presumptive nominee and then get caught dining and ditching at Houlihan's

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Oh good, since the Clintons are somewhat shady (or perceived as such) lets just pick the shadiest guy imaginable in politics who left his cancer ridden wife on her deathbed because she wouldn't share him.

Wait, what!?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Eh, sorta. They turned out more, but were a marginally larger share of the vote from say, 2004 to 2008.

Yeah they were numerically more of them but actually the % of the total electorate only went up 1% from 17 to 18 compared to 1996, 2000 and 2004

And way down from 76 where they had a share of 32% which is incredible.

 

[B-Dubs]

Wait, what!?

That's Newt alright. Dude's literally the slimiest guys in politics (that isn't in jail for molesting children).

 

[StopMakingSense]

Wait, what!?

Newt Gingrich is a lovely man.

 

[whyamihere]

Again, this is also unsurprising. The absentee vote is overwhelmingly old people, I think something like 70% of the absentee vote on average is people over the age of 65+. Given Clinton wins that demographic by such big margins, you'd expect the absentee vote to end up flipping results fairly frequently. I would be interested to see a primary-caucus analysis of the absentee ballot, though - you're right that it's relatively consistent between primaries and caucuses, so you could actually do some proper data analysis. I might look into that when I've finished my thesis/stopped posting in GAF to procrastinate from finishing my thesis.

EDIT: Does anyone know a site that lists results with absentee and postal ballots disaggregated from the main results?

I don't know of any site, but it was more to my point that these people are not caucusing for whatever reason. The demographics of caucuses probably don't look like the demos of what you'd expect a Dem primary would be in any state.

Which is why Wyoming was so much closer of a caucus than most have been.

 

[User 463088]

None of this actually responds to my points. Your entire argument basically comes down to "Sanders did well in caucus states" - well sure, because he was always expected to do well in caucus states. They're states like Iowa and Washington, they're typically small, white, rural and post-industrial. That's natural Sanders territory, he would have won them regardless. If he'd done surprisingly well in the caucuses of a state with a relatively high number of minorities, you might have a point - but the only caucus in such a state was Nevada, really, where Sanders moderately underperformed his polling, so the data is not there. The supporting data is not "did Sanders do well in caucus states" because that observation is riddled by selection bias; it's "did Sanders do better in caucus states than he would have done if they were primaries?". We can't actually say conclusively, because we can't observe that world, but we have strong prima facie reasons to suppose that is not the case.

I never said Bernie wouldn't have won caucus states had they been primaries. I think he definitely still would have won quite a few of them. HOWEVER, what you said was:

Obviously we can't test this, but I'd put reasonable money on Sanders actually having slightly more delegates in the hypothetical world where every caucus state was converted to an open primary.

This is what I'm taking issue with. We have concrete examples, from this cycle no less, that show Bernie probably would not have done as well in a primary in lieu of a caucus. (Washington and Nebraska.) Caucuses are tailor made for a candidate like Bernie Sanders. You are, literally, the only person I've ever heard dispute the fact that Bernie benefited from the caucus process. I can come with numerous demographic reasons why Hillary would be more negatively impacted by them than the groups of people that support Bernie.

There is no way his margins in Washington (or Minnesota or Colorado) would have been the same as what he managed in a caucus state. They're low turnout events. As we've seen, the states with higher turnout have actually favored Hillary not Bernie.

Hell, we can compare Washington and Oregon. Demographically, Oregon is slightly more advantageous to Bernie than Washington. There are more white people. The median age is basically the same, and when states are ranked based on how liberal they are, Oregon is ranked more liberal. Bernie won Washington by 46 points. He only managed a 12 point win in Oregon.

Or we could use evidence from caucuses that allowed absentee voting. Hillary, across the board, did better in those states, especially when compared to same day caucus goers turning out. She still lost them, obviously, but not by the same type of margins.

To be clear, I do not dispute Bernie would have won Washington and Minnesota had they been primaries. What I disagree with is your assertion that he would have done better had they been primaries. There's nothing whatsoever to support that.

 

[RastaMentality]

Newt has the most punchable face in the history of politics. Ted Cruz was the sequel.

 

[User1608]

That's Newt alright. Dude's literally the slimiest guys in politics (that isn't in jail for molesting children).

Yep. Oh god I tried to block that from my mind. He's such a piece of shit.

Please proceed, Trump.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Is Newt's movie studio still open?

 

[royalan]

And no, the Washington beauty contest doesn't count. It had absolutely no consequences and Sanders had already won the caucus, of course his voters couldn't be bothered compared to Clinton ones looking to salvage some dignity. You can't extrapolate from something that was nothing but a gimmick to the real thing.

That didn't stop Obama from winning both in '08, did it?

 

[User 463088]

Imagine this scenario.

Hillary wins New Jersey and passes the 2383 number. She goes on TV and declares herself the nominee.

Then by some incredible fluke Sanders wins California 80%-20%, and ends up passing Hillary in pledged delegates. if that happened, supers when would then flock to Sanders and he would be the nominee. Hillary's claim would have been incorrect, because at the time of her saying it Sanders was not mathematically eliminated.

Now will that happen? Of course not. There's a bout a .0005% chance of such a scenario happening. But the point is until Sanders is truly mathematically eliminated. saying you are the nominee is premature, because super delegates can always switch to whoever ends up with the pledged majority.

There is absolutely no harm in Hillary waiting until Sanders is completely mathematically eliminated from the race to declare herself the nominee, by waiting for California to roll in. Once it does, and she passes the pledged delegate majority, there is going to be absolutely no question, except from the craziest of crazies, that she's the nominee.

Robert Reich for example says there's still a slim chance Sanders can win. And he's right. Again it's a super super slim chance, but there is. Until that chance is completely eliminated, which will happen once the vote in California comes in, she should hold off. Again because it will help with party unity, and help in defeating Trump. Which is the goal.

Well, Hillary has internal polling of California. If she goes out there and says she's the nominee, she's the nominee. Her people aren't stupid. There's no way in hell Bernie can win by enough to become the nominee. And, after the week he's had, I doubt he could get enough Supers to jump to him even if the world magically imploded and Hillary went to prison for stealing a Kit Kat from the 7/11. There hasn't been a single poll of California with Bernie leading. Just ain't gonna happen.

When she gets 2383 delegates, pledged and Super, she will be called the nominee. Period. That's how it's always been. That's how it should be.

 

[blackw0lf]

Well, Hillary has internal polling of California. If she goes out there and says she's the nominee, she's the nominee. Her people aren't stupid. There's no way in hell Bernie can win by enough to become the nominee. And, after the week he's had, I doubt he could get enough Supers to jump to him even if the world magically imploded and Hillary went to prison for stealing a Kit Kat from the 7/11. There hasn't been a single poll of California with Bernie leading. Just ain't gonna happen.

When she gets 2383 delegates, pledged and Super, she will be called the nominee. Period. That's how it's always been. That's how it should be.

She has every right and justification to call herself the nominee. My point is it's in her own best interest to hold off until California rolls in. She will be more able to unify the party if she does so.

 

[Iolo]

I mean, technically Hillary isn't the nominee until the last night of the convention. Let's not get too hasty here. It's arrogant to declare herself the nominee after California votes. We are going all the way to the convention because only Bernie Sanders can beat Trump.

 

[User 463088]

She has every right and justification to call herself the nominee. My point is it's in her own best interest to hold off until California rolls in. She will be more able to unify the party if she does so.

I just don't think anyone who is going to refuse to vote for her because she didn't wait for California to close. If a candidate gets 270 electoral votes before all the polls close, they're still going to be declared the winner. It's just math.

 

[studyguy]

Sanders getting 80% in California?

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Bob Dole, pushing the Dream Ticket:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IS2TYLdq6Q

YES YES YES!

PLEASE!

Place your bets on the margin of woman voters for Hillary.. Place your bets now.

A guy who has had three wives, divorcing one while she had cancer.

Insert conservative values joke

Wait, what!?

Yup he's a huge fucking scumbag.

Is Newt's movie studio still open?

Yes. I believe it has a movie coming out.. I think on the civil war. I saw a few ads for it somewhere.

 

[Cipherr]

Honesty I hope they don't. The sanders supporters will just say she's only winning because the superdelegates rigged the process

Make the nomination based on Hillary passing the pledged delegate majority, effectively eliminating sanders mathematically

Also Hillary should only declare victory when she passes the pledged delegate majority.

No, they will do as they have forever. And count the Supers as they always have. Bernie and his camp doesn't get to change and warp reality to fit his desires. He lost, and they will announce her win as they have in the races prior.

She will accept the announcement and give a speech and Bernie can seethe.

Because his supporters will take it the wrong way.

His supporters have taken him losing in GENERAL the wrong way. Time is up, the game is over. No more lifelines, no more extensions. He lost, and the finality of that will hit every media station and every newspaper across the nation regardless of whether or not it hurts some people's feelings.

Its going to be a blitz when this happens, I dont think people remember how it goes. In no time the President and all Democrats within the entire party will coalesce and do speeches, mentions and throw official support behind Hillary immediately.

 

[shem935]

She doesn't need to call herself the nominee, the media will do that enough for her. Horse races are all well and good but everyone wants to see a winner.