Support NeoGAF

[metalslimer]

TYT have lost their minds. It's very simple mathematics to do to see why their analysis is wrong but they keep parroting the same crap. The only metric by which Bernie did well yesterday is going off the fact he has relatively unknown before this election and is competing with Clinton

 

[eBay Huckster]

The turnout numbers for Dems as compared to Reps last night looked worse. Is this to be expected? I hope it doesn't remain this way in the general, damn it.

Reminder that the only times that notably higher primary turnout accurately reflected the popular vote winner in the last nine elections were 1992 and 2008.

(Go back one more and we have 1976, where that record goes to 3 out of 10.)

Of the elections without an actual or quasi-incumbency advantage since then, we're looking at:
1980 (where Carter's approvals spent most of the year 20+ points underwater, where Carter/Kennedy ultimately outpolled Reagan/Bush/Anderson, and where Carter lost by several million votes);
1988 (where Bush still needed to actually win the nomination and started off winning 4 out of 11, where the Democrats literally doubled the GOP's primary turnout, and where Dukakis lost by a ton);
1992 (where in spite of HW being an incumbent, that advantage basically got nullified by the combination of the recession, his tax increase, and Foreign Policy Being Over);
2000 (where Bush/McCain outpolled Gore/Bradley by 5 million, lost the popular vote, and only won the EC because of Gore's combo of fixating entirely on Florida and being an actual walking definition of milquetoast);
2008 (where Obama/Clinton outpolled the GOP by 14 million votes, and Obama wound up winning the general by 10 million);
and this year.

 

[Synless]

Ok Gaf, sadly I have not been doing my political duties for this country for years. Seems like sanders was the guy I really wanted (and the person our country needs) but he's getting his ass kicked. Help catch me up.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Ok Gaf, sadly I have not been doing my political duties for this country for years. Seems like sanders was the guy I really wanted (and the person our country needs) but he's getting his ass kicked. Help catch me up.

He won some states but Hillary's win of Texas negates all the states he won. Hillary also won 5 other states with crushing margins and she won Massachusetts.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

It definitely is a bit worrying to me that Democrat turnout is so much lower than 2008. It's also extremely worrying to me that a lot of Bernie's diehard fans are becoming very anti-Hillary. I want Bernie too, I love him, and think he has a better chance in the GE against Trump. But I see pleeeenty of people on my Facebook wall who claim they'll either stay home on election day, or vote Trump just to be anti-establishment despite how monstrously different Trump is from Bernie.

I'm of course doing my best to get all of my friends to see reason, but it's really making me paranoid that this Bernie to Trump trend is being undersold.

These people are idiots and hopefully they're a small enough minority of people to not fuck us over. God damn morons.

 

[JeTmAn81]

Yeah but those young people aren't voting...

Only history will tell if this is a long lasting thing.

Btw if you wanna see how people can get tanked and tanked fast, read up on what happened to Mondale and Dukakais.

That said Sanders is a better candidate than either of those two..

Oh I see what you did there...

 

[plagiarize]

TYT have lost their minds. It's very simple mathematics to do to see why their analysis is wrong but they keep parroting the same crap. The only metric by which Bernie did well yesterday is going off the fact he has relatively unknown before this election and is competing with Clinton

Yep. Basically the rhetoric is, Sanders is beating Sanders from two months ago! MOMENTUM.

Clinton hasn't really declined in the polls over the last six months or so. The *gap* between her and Clinton has shrunk a lot... but there's little sign that Clinton is losing voters. It's been Sander's picking up everyone that wasn't for Clinton a year ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

 

[Macho Madness]

Ok Gaf, sadly I have not been doing my political duties for this country for years. Seems like sanders was the guy I really wanted (and the person our country needs) but he's getting his ass kicked. Help catch me up.

A month ago he looked possibly viable. Then we got to Nevada and he hasn't been able to really recover. After Super Tuesday, he's still got a shot at the nomination but it's increasingly narrow and would require a lot of polls to be wrong.

 

[Tesseract]

sanders is the most incorruptible man in politics.

he chained himself to a black girl in 1963 and was arrested fighting for civil rights. that kind of heart can't be learned, or evolved upon. got no super pac funding him, no corporations whispering in his ears, no neoliberals.

 

[brainchild]

sanders is the most incorruptible man in politics.

he chained himself to a black girl in 1963 and was arrested fighting for civil rights. that kind of heart can't be learned, or evolved upon. got no super pac funding him, no corporations whispering in his ears, no neoliberals.

Sarcasm aside, he is definitely one politician who won't be bought out, that's for sure.

 

[BlastProcessing]

sanders is the most incorruptible man in politics.

he chained himself to a black girl in 1963 and was arrested fighting for civil rights. that kind of heart can't be learned, or evolved upon. got no super pac funding him, no corporations whispering in his ears, no neoliberals.

Man, I can't tell who is being serious anymore.

 

[brainchild]

So the dude who said "My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.” and “You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.” and then switched parties the second that it would benefit him personally is the most incorruptible man in politics?

I don't think the person you quoted was being serious, lol

 

[BlastProcessing]

I don't think the person you quoted was being serious, lol

Yeah, I picked up on that almost quick enough. I need a nap.

 

[brainchild]

Yeah, I picked up on that almost quick enough. I need a nap.

Don't worry, it took me few moments to get it as well, lol

 

[Extollere]

Ok, so I understand that most hardcore conservatives want to "abolish the IRS" as they always say... but why isn't this statement scrutinized any further? Like, realistically speaking, what would happen if we did get rid of the IRS? Has anyone ever really thought this thing through?

Like, no more federal taxes, right? Isn't this the same as publicly admitting you want to sabotage the economy?

 

[Macho Madness]

Ok, so I understand that most hardcore conservatives want to "abolish the IRS" as they always say... but why isn't this statement scrutinized any further? Like, realistically speaking, what would happen if we did get rid of the IRS? Has anyone ever really thought this thing through?

Like, no more federal taxes, right? Isn't this the same as publicly admitting you want to sabotage the economy?

Usually it's alongside a proposal for a flat tax. Who handles flat tax returns? WHO KNOWS?

The IRS is super unpopular because they take all your money and audit you so I assume that's why it's always said. No one likes the IRS.

 

[ampere]

Ok, so I understand that most hardcore conservatives want to "abolish the IRS" as they always say... but why isn't this statement scrutinized any further? Like, realistically speaking, what would happen if we did get rid of the IRS? Has anyone ever really thought this thing through?

Like, no more federal taxes, right? Isn't this the same as publicly admitting you want to sabotage the economy?

The "get rid of federal income tax" -> "abolish the IRS" train of thought tends to get paired with the flat 30% federal sales tax idea. Basically saying that all that lost income revenue would be made up for with this new sales tax. Of course, this is regressive taxation and it makes tax evasion a lot easier and altogether isn't a good idea, but perhaps that answers your question.

 

[Extollere]

I mean... it sounds like something that would mostly benefit rich people.

 

[Macho Madness]

I mean... it sounds like something that would mostly benefit rich people.

 

[ampere]

Yup, that's what regressive means when referring to taxation. Someone who is poor spends a higher % of their income than someone who is rich, and thus would be subject to near the full flat tax % on their total income.

 

[Extollere]

I'm just trying to understand how the fuck anyone can be for that. Ok, I get wealthy people, but poor and mid-class conservatives who just hate the IRS cuz gubbermint?

 

[Blader]

I'm just trying to understand how the fuck anyone can be for that. Ok, I get wealthy people, but poor and mid-class conservatives who just hate the IRS cuz gubbermint?

Because they don't know any better.

Republicans have been telling people for 30 years that breaks for the wealthy trickle down into more jobs and higher wages for middle and lower-income people. That it doesn't actually work that way doesn't matter, what matters is that that's the idea stuck in a lot of people's heads. Most Americans frankly don't understand economics, and if conservative policies like austerity don't translate into sudden financial success for them, then it must be the Democrats' fault or the GOP isn't just conservative enough.

 

[televator]

Makes sense really, when you're trying to stand out from the crowd in the world of the media, why not unabashedly pander for the Sanders youth demographic viewers.

Sell yourself as the guy who won't fall into the "media narrative"

It's transparent as fuck and anti-intellectual but hey.

Pandering? Cenk has always spoken outside the bounds of main media narratives, even while he was on MSNBC. He did so along with Dylan Ratigan there. He continued doing it to the point where it was no longer convenient for NBC to have him on anymore. I get the sense that Cenk has always just said what he really believes. If he was interested in "pandering" it may have been a better idea to curb his enthusiasm while on MSNBC. On the online TYT front, it would have probably also been more beneficial to get behind Sam Harris and take a more confrontational stance against Muslims in oder to pander to the online audience that is more receptive of opinions from Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc... But no pandering there.

Cenk has also spoken positively, for years about principled progressives like Sanders, Alan Grayson, and Warren. It's no big surprise that he ended up supporting Sanders. It would have been completely out of character for him to back Hillary for the primary. Frankly that would have called his character more into question as it would be in stark contrast to what he's been saying for years.

 

[noshten]

Pandering? Cenk has always spoken outside the bounds of main media narratives, even while he was on MSNBC. He did so along with Dylan Ratigan there. He continued doing it to the point where it was no longer convenient for NBC to have him on anymore. I get the sense that Cenk has always just said what he really believes. If he was interested in "pandering" it may have been a better idea to curb his enthusiasm while on MSNBC. On the online TYT front, it would have probably also been more beneficial to get behind Sam Harris and take a more confrontational stance against Muslims in oder to pander to the online audience that is more receptive of opinions from Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc... But no pandering there.

Cenk has also spoken positively, for years about principled progressives like Sanders, Alan Grayson, and Warren. It's no big surprise that he ended up supporting Sanders. It would have been completely out of character for him to back Hillary for the primary. Frankly that would have called his character more into question as it would be in stark contrast to what he's been saying for years.

Yep, the whole narrative of people being outraged at TYT coverage, is obviously by people who haven't really been paying attention to what they talk about. It's not a huge news organization it's basically an online political blog that covers current affairs in the same manner Daily Show, Colbert report do without the high budget or big writing team.
Expecting them to have a negative outlook on Sanders is frankly baffling, pretty much how expecting CNN, MSNBC to not be skewered towards Clinton and Fox News not to be downplaying their circus trying to prop up some anti-Trump candidate into the ring.

 

[Downhome]

Here is a better recap of the turnout yesterday...

 

[Dany]

Who is fairing better in urban areas? Sanders or Clinton?

 

[televator]

Here is a better recap of the turnout yesterday...

All shall prepare to bow before the new god King emperor Drumbf

 

[ampere]

Here is a better recap of the turnout yesterday...

http://i.imgur.com/sRjGMlN.jpg[img]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/zFtkX73.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

We discussed this earlier, the voter turnout for primaries isn't a good indicator of general election turnout.

 

[Macho Madness]

Why presidential primary turnout doesn't matter

 

[docbon]

If you bros are wrong I'm gonna quote you so hard to cope with my feelings of grief.

 

[B-Dubs]

(new background music)

Super Tuesday isn't over yet! It turns out that there's a number of states between now and the next big day of the primary season! In the coming days these states will hold their primaries and caucuses:

That's right, it's not over yet! The world is still coming to an end and things are getting worse for everyone who isn't Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton...

Via 270towin:

A summary of upcoming events and polling.

Republican

March 5

Kansas (Caucus, 40 delegates): No polling available*; Cruz won nearby Oklahoma primary on Super Tuesday

Kentucky (Caucus, 46): A late February poll had Trump leading Rubio, with Cruz third (Likely Trump)

Louisiana (Primary, 46): A new poll has Trump well ahead of Cruz, with Rubio third (Likely Trump)

Maine (Caucus, 23): No polling available; Trump easily won Massachusetts on Super Tuesday but had a narrow win in Vermont; Kasich finished 2nd in both states

March 6

Puerto Rico (Primary, 23): No polling available

March 8

Hawaii (Caucus, 19): No polling available Idaho (Primary, 32): No polling available

Michigan (Primary, 59): Recent polls have Trump averaging in the low 30's, about equal to combined support for Rubio & Cruz. Expect these two, along with Kasich, to battle for 2nd (Likely Trump)

Mississippi (Primary, 40): A poll out today gives Trump 41%, well ahead of Cruz & Rubio (Likely Trump)

Democrat

March 5

Kansas (Caucus, 37 delegates); Nebraska (Caucus, 30 delegates): No polling available*; Sanders won 'nearby' Oklahoma primary on Super Tuesday as well as the two mainland caucus states (Colorado, Minnesota) that day

Louisiana (Primary, 59): Clinton far ahead in two recent polls; one this week had Sanders at 14%, which is below the 15% threshold to receive any delegates (Solid Clinton)

March 6

Maine (Caucus, 30): No polling available; Sanders easily won his home state of Vermont on Super Tuesday, while Massachusetts was extremely competitive

March 8

Michigan (Primary, 147): Easily the biggest Democratic delegate prize during this period. Recent polls have shown an increasing lead for Clinton; now averaging 20 points over Sanders (Likely Clinton)

Mississippi (Primary, 41): A poll out today gives Clinton 65% to Sanders 11%. As in Louisiana, Sanders could be at risk of being shut out of delegates (Solid Clinton)

 

[numble]

Maine caucuses should all be completed by 6 PM:
http://mainegop.com/caucus/

Will we start the night with Kasichmentum?

 

[Cerium]

Maine caucuses should all be completed by 6 PM:
http://mainegop.com/caucus/

Will we start the night with Kasichmentum?

Maine is culturally more similar to the deep south than it is to the midwest.

 

[Glorified G]

Damn at that Virgina turnout for republicans.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Kansas (Caucus, 40 delegates): No polling available*

Silly asterisk. Poll from March 2-3 had Trump up by 6 points over Ted Cruz.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Pandering? Cenk has always spoken outside the bounds of main media narratives, even while he was on MSNBC. He did so along with Dylan Ratigan there. He continued doing it to the point where it was no longer convenient for NBC to have him on anymore. I get the sense that Cenk has always just said what he really believes. If he was interested in "pandering" it may have been a better idea to curb his enthusiasm while on MSNBC. On the online TYT front, it would have probably also been more beneficial to get behind Sam Harris and take a more confrontational stance against Muslims in oder to pander to the online audience that is more receptive of opinions from Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc... But no pandering there.

Cenk has also spoken positively, for years about principled progressives like Sanders, Alan Grayson, and Warren. It's no big surprise that he ended up supporting Sanders. It would have been completely out of character for him to back Hillary for the primary. Frankly that would have called his character more into question as it would be in stark contrast to what he's been saying for years.

The pandering comes on when you pretend Suoer Tuesday was a win for Sanders

 

[Macho Madness]

Cenk and TYT for this primary election cycle are the definition of pandering. Self indulgence about what a true progressive is and saying that Bernie's going to win when he's obviously not.

 

[brainchild]

Cenk and TYT for this primary election cycle are the definition of pandering. Self indulgence about what a true progressive is and saying that Bernie's going to win when he's obviously not.

Or maybe they're just biased and delusional?

 

[gutter_trash]

I forgot about today, I'm glad we still have some entertainment ongoing

 

[kingkitty]

A little off topic but tomorrow there's a Democratic debate that no longer has an assigned thread maker. If anyone wants to create that thread, feel free to claim dibs.

edit: There's another Democratic debate on the 9th that needs to be assigned as well.

 

[boiled goose]

Or maybe they're just biased and delusional?

I disagree with Cenks optimism,but it's not outside the realm of possibility. He has always said 3.15 is the day when it will be clear whether Sanders has enough momentum or not.

I have my delegate spreadsheet ready. I agree it will be clear.

Cenk and TYT for this primary election cycle are the definition of pandering. Self indulgence about what a true progressive is and saying that Bernie's going to win when he's obviously not.

I mean,you can argue semantics on the labels, but id rather discuss the substance. They backup their labeling with substantive differences. That's what matters.

They haven't said he is going to win. They have always said he is the underdog. Again i disagree with cenks super Tuesday victory and that the race is 50 50 narrative.

That is a disagreement. I dont call the opposite viewpoint pandering.

 

[giga]

So here are the states up next for the Dems. Some of these don't have any polling, so for those I'm going to give Bernie 60% of the delegates.

Kansas: 33 delegates (20 Bernie, 13 Hillary)
Lousiana: 51 delegates (30 Hillary, 21 Bernie)
Nebraska: 25 delegates (15 Bernie, 10 Hillary)
Maine: 25 delegates (15 Bernie, 10 Hillary)
Michigan: 130 delegates (76 Hillary, 54 Bernie)
Mississippi: 36 delegates (23 Hillary, 13 Bernie)

Bernie: +138 (Total: 747)
Hillary: +162 (Total: 574)

Is that about right?

 

[gutter_trash]

So here are the states up next for the Dems. Some of these don't have any polling, so for those I'm going to give Bernie 60% of the delegates.

Kansas: 33 delegates (20 Bernie, 13 Hillary)
Lousiana: 51 delegates (30 Hillary, 21 Bernie)
Nebraska: 25 delegates (15 Bernie, 10 Hillary)
Maine: 25 delegates (15 Bernie, 10 Hillary)
Michigan: 130 delegates (76 Hillary, 54 Bernie)
Mississippi: 36 delegates (23 Hillary, 13 Bernie)

Bernie: +138
Hillary: +162

Is that about right?

Your Louisiana and Missisissipppi numbers are too low for Hillary, she is going to crush Bernie there even bigger.

As for Maine, Bernie will do better there than your numbers

 

[Zophar]

Nebraska's out in force for Sanders today. Caucusing in Omaha ATM and the turnout is overflowing virtually every polling place in the city. At my location it's about 4:1 in Sanders' favor; over 2000 people at a location prepared for about 1/3rd of that. Others are reporting they've ran out of ballots.

 

[giga]

Your Louisiana and Missisissipppi numbers are too low for Hillary, she is going to crush Bernie there even bigger.

As for Maine, Bernie will do better there than your numbers

She's polling around 60% in LA though?

 

[RustyNails]

A little off topic but tomorrow there's a Democratic debate that no longer has an assigned thread maker. If anyone wants to create that thread, feel free to claim dibs.

Why hasn't anyone done a My Little Pony theme for a debate yet?

 

[kingkitty]

Why hasn't anyone done a My Little Pony theme for a debate yet?

if you want, you could use this thread making opportunity to spread the gospel of My Little Pony

 

[giga]

Whoa, I didn't realize this. That's pretty critical.

 

[BoosterDuck]

Whoa, I didn't realize this. That's pretty critical.

bye bye Cruz, you scum

 

[gutter_trash]

She's polling around 60% in LA though?

she over performed in South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee than the polls
and did slightly better than the polls in Georgia