Different states have different delegate rules for candidates that have dropped out: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...3BbGlCmrUgObX2kHM80yQ/htmlview#gid=1771503707
Super Tuesday 2016 |OT| The Final Incursion is a double Incursion (Mar 5-15 contests)
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
My guess is that he is going to focus 100% on rehabbing his image in the time he has left in the race. He destroyed his image by stooping to Trump's level and he will just look desperate if he goes after Cruz at this point.
It will be very interesting to see what he does between now and Florida. It doesn't look like he will be able to win a single state between now and then.
How Hillary Clintons Vote Against Clean Water Regulations Could Cost Her Michigan
http://usuncut.com/news/hillary-clinton-groundwater-pollution/
Should be interesting if they bring up her vote during the debate, Sanders needs to attack her on this ahead of Michigan
http://usuncut.com/news/hillary-clinton-groundwater-pollution/
Should be interesting if they bring up her vote during the debate, Sanders needs to attack her on this ahead of Michigan
Although not a state, he should win Puerto Rico today.
*multiple gasps throughout room*
boiled goose
good with gravy
Sanders didn't really lose or gain anything Yesterday. Basically, he did fine overall, but his losses in the South are too massive. To have a shot, he can't just do fine, he needs to really start outperforming.
The lead is ~200, which is huge. The only way to close the gap is upsets in big states like Michigan, Illinois, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio.
Without above expectations showings here, the path to victory is completely closed.
Sanders could win or keep it close in all these states, but at this point, he has to start outperforming initial expectations.His is behind on the polls. A narrow victory is no longer enough.
The lead is ~200, which is huge. The only way to close the gap is upsets in big states like Michigan, Illinois, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio.
Without above expectations showings here, the path to victory is completely closed.
Sanders could win or keep it close in all these states, but at this point, he has to start outperforming initial expectations.His is behind on the polls. A narrow victory is no longer enough.
Oops.
So Sanders is at the point of attacking Hillary to hopefully change votes instead of positively proposing his vision for Reformation.
More politics as usual when the rubber meets the street. Et Tu, Bernie?
He wasn't part of the vote for the amendment in question:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00139
youngplaya21
Member
Cool, thanks! Looks like it's a lot more complicated than I would've thought...
Mix Master
Member
I hope Rubio stays in just to make a bigger fool of himself.
That clap back. 👏👏
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Clinton's not even on that list, so it's clearly about something else.
Diprosalic
Banned
how big is the pressure from the GOP now on Rubio to drop out and give Cruz the best chance to win this?
i wonder why Trump wants him to drop out too.
i wonder why Trump wants him to drop out too.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
That's not even linked to Flint. I can't see how bringing that up helps Sanders in Michigan.
In fact, I can't even see why any reputable website would try to claim something like this could cause Clinton to lose Michigan, unless they're just shills for Sanders...
Oh.
That's not even linked to Flint. I can't see how bringing that up helps Sanders in Michigan.
In fact, I can't even see why any reputable website would try to claim something like this could cause Clinton to lose Michigan, unless they're just shills for Sanders...
Oh.
Except I never said this issue alone would win Michigan for Sanders.
Also the article I quoted is in response to a similar article from IBTimes - Hillary Clinton, Before Spotlighting Crisis In Flint, Michigan, Voted Against Measure To Prevent Groundwater Pollution
So you trying to dispute the article based on conspiracy theories is frankly another symptom of how Hillary can do no wrong in some peoples eyes. Just because CNN is not covering it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Can I have the lottery numbers as well?
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I never said you said it. I'm calling into question the journalistic integrity of your source.
Also: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/
It's over in Michigan. I live here. Sanders doesn't stand a chance.
Edit: Saw your edit and I really think you need to calm down with that nonsense. I never said she didn't fuck up. I said there's no chance in hell of it costing her Michigan.
You point to Hillary supporters as a problem, yet can't see how you're getting so personally involved as a Sanders supporter than you're blindly striking out at even the smallest perceived slight.
I'm not fighting you. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies and addressing you with facts. Factually, Sanders could win Michigan. But he's got about as much chance as I have of being elected Pope.
I found it odd that Trump called for Rubio to drop out. I think most of Rubio's supporters would move on to Cruz and in a one on one race I think Cruz beats Trump. But maybe Trump is just ticked off at Rubio and wants him gone.
If we just have Cruz and Trump winning races this Tuesday like last night, it's time for Rubio and Kasich to step out and get behind Cruz, as they are so far down in the delegate count they don't have a chance to reach the magic number, especially Kasich. Let Trump and Cruz have a one on one debate before the 15th.
Macho Madness
Member
David Sirota is an extremely flawed source.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
See my above edit, which addresses your (frankly) bizarre vitriol toward me just because I don't agree with you that Bernie Sanders can win Michigan.
It's not a matter of guessing, like lotto numbers would be. My prediction is based on the cold, hard facts that are made up of months of polling numbers, which have only gone up for her in recent weeks (aside from the occasional outlier poll).
boiled goose
good with gravy
If this spread holds, it is for sure over for Sanders. He can't afford to lose by 20 points in Michigan. He might even need a win.
Macho Madness
Member
Well, no. It's not fact. It hasn't happened yet. But it's extremely likely, yes.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I'm saying my prediction (which isn't really mine. It's the prediction of anyone paying attention) is based on facts (i.e. polls).
Edit: Reread my post and I can see where it got confusing. I edited it. Sorry about that
IIRC, when a candidate drops - their delegates become uncommitted and can vote whomever they choose at the convention (in most cases).
If Rubio drops too early, it's more of a gamble to leave it to the voters as to who they support. If Rubio drops later, after winning a few delegates, those delegates will be easier to 'persuade' to move to Cruz over Trump. It's less of a gamble.
I *think* this is the reason why there is so much talk of the GOP going for a split delegate scenario at the convention versus unifying against Trump during the race.
So are the majority of surrogates that attack Sanders on a host of issues ranging from health care, immigration reform, gun-record, primary against Obama, how much Jane Sanders was paid to be part of his stuff etc. But sure only one way attacks are fine for some people and when Hillary is attacked in the same vain - they are quick to denounce such activity. I've been posting a long enough time about this election and know how this dance goes.
brainchild
Banned
Yeah, this isn't the first time that someone has referred to the poll numbers as facts in terms of who's voting for whom. Like, what?
The sample sizes in these polls immediately refute such a notion, as is the point that these surveys depend on the testimony of a person, which is always subject to change.
Not even Hillary, nor Bernie, take scientific polling as seriously as some people on the internet. You can't have an upset in a state if polling numbers factually represent which voters will vote for which candidate.
Now, do they tell us how likely it is that people will vote a certain way? Sometimes, sure, but the only facts about that information is that people actually provided that information, not that they're guaranteed to follow through on it.
As Harry Enten says, they can be accurate and not predictive. A ton of people change their mind on the last day, and this doesn't mean the poll was wrong.
brainchild
Banned
The possibility or likelihood of them being accurate is not the same as them being accurate.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Sorry, show me where I said the poll numbers show unequivocally who's voting for who.
I said that my predictions are based on facts (the poll numbers factually exist) which show, time and again, that Clinton will win Michigan and that it likely won't even be close.
Does Sanders have a chance? Sure, in the way that there are always unknown variables that come into play in elections. But his chances are infinitesimally small.
Ogrekiller
Member
Apparently polls a week out in Michigan aren't accurate enough but head to head polls showing Sanders crushing Republicans a year out are.
Oh well.
Even early general election polls are accurate, just not predictive. People will change their mind after they find out that Bernie wants to raise their taxes.
brainchild
Banned
If that is what you meant, then I have no problem with your statement. I didn't originally take it that way, but thank you for clarifying.
Even this statement is false if the conclusion is that the polling data accurately represents the voting intentions of the electorate. It's proven false on the basis that the sample sizes do not include every member of the electorate (not even close), so it cannot represent the electorate even significantly. This is why it's possible for polls to be wrong even if no one changed their minds at the last minute.
Polling methodology is the big issue here, not the numbers themselves.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I tend to type faster than I think (especially when I'm at work, as I am right now), which leads to confusing posts.
Sorry about that. Glad we could reach an understanding.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Rubio dropping out means Trump only has to defend against one attacker.
Ogrekiller
Member
Not only that he's diverting Marco's direction to Cruz. It's brilliant.
"Only Ted can stop me! Only one person can stop me- but YOU aren't the one who's worthy. Ted is."
It's so transparent but Rube will take the bait.
Huh? Are you completely unfamiliar with statistical inference?
https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/17
The electorate could have 50 quadrillion people and you'd still only need a sample size of a few hundred.
brainchild
Banned
I know exactly how the methodology works, but it does not change the validity of what I said.
Statistical models for elections can be useful, but they are still probabilistic. The fact that every single one of them shows a margin of error above 0 percentage points should immediately tell you that the information isn't factual, but probable.
You can argue that something may be 95% accurate, but that doesn't make it a fact.
EDIT:
To be clear, when we talk about diminishing returns on the margin of error when you increase sample size, it has to do with the threshold you reach in terms of being able reliably infer how representative the sample size is, not how actually representative the sample size is. However, when the sample size is 100% of the population, you no longer need to make an inference, because you have an absolute value, effectively reducing the margin of error to 0 percentage points.
Only at the point when you're 100% correct could you say that it's a FACT that the electorate says this or that.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I think what he is saying that if your sample is not representative of your electorate, your polling may be skewed.
Not sure if it applies in this case, but it definitely is a common concern with polling in general.
As an example, if you poll by landline only, you will never get an accurate sample of the electorate, even if you increase the sample size. This is why polling method is important. You dont want to have any bias in the selection, you want it to be truly random so that it represents the electorate.
Rubio is dead either way.
brainchild
Banned
I mean, this is also true, and I agree with it, but I wasn't even making this point.
Even if the sampling was perfectly random, it's still probabilistic data; there is still a margin of error. If there is still a margin of error, then your data cannot be considered to factually represent the entirety of the electorate. That was the point I was making.
Since the overall number of available delegates diminished and Sanders did not make up the gap between him and Clinton, I'd say he lost last night.
Oh sure, but I believe he is saying the only representative sample is the entire electorate.
I don't understand this at all. All sciences are messy!
brainchild
Banned
No, I am saying that the only FACTUALLY representative sample of the entirety of the electorate is the entirety of the electorate. Anything less than that could be the PROBABLE representative sample of the entirety of the electorate.
For example, if 100% of the people in your sample (of say, 2000) would like to see an increase in their wages within the next 12 months, that does NOT mean that it's a fact that 100% of the electorate would like to see an increase in their wages within the next 12 months. To argue as much is not 'messy science', it's just flat out wrong.
That's not really a point, it's semantics.
No, it's not just semantics. Something is either a fact or it isn't. If you can't understand that, I can't help you.
And my argument had nothing to do with me hoping that there is a chance of anything, so you're completely off-base.
brainchild
Banned
This is misleading. All scientific measurement is prone to error, but there are ways to correct certain errors with certain measurements.
In the case of scientific polling, you cannot 'correct' the margin of error (to the point where there is no longer any room for error) until you are no longer making statistical inferencing, which is not possible until you can account for the entire electorate.
So I have a degree in applied math with an emphasis in* statistics. I understand what you're saying, it's just that it's a) nitpicky (facts vs evidence?) and b) doesn't really advance the thread's conversation about politics or its sense of community.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I can't wait until this turns into a philosophical debate regarding the existence of absolute reality.
- Status