Super Tuesday 2016 |OT| The Final Incursion is a double Incursion (Mar 5-15 contests)

Status
Not open for further replies.
thepotatoman said:
Which either proves early head to head polls don't matter
Click to expand...

I could've swown actual research hosted on JSTOR explicitly looking at the predictive power of head-to-head polls based on the time of their release, and finding that they have generally tended toward being wildly off base, proves that early head to head polls don't matter (short of a different comprehensive analysis showing a different result!)
 
brainchild said:
This is how I feel. The people pleading with him to protect her while he's running against her seem like a bunch of whiny kindergarteners ready to take a nap.
Click to expand...

For the record, I've never called for him to drop out. However, this shit doesn't help the party as a whole. If Bernie is serious in that he wants to see a Democrat in the White House (and I believe he is) he should be mindful of his attacks. I don't think these are damning, because the only people who care about this are Bernie supporters who already don't want Hillary.

Hillary was also paid the same amount of money to give speeches to a lot of non-profit and liberal groups. That was just her speaking fee. It's not a huge issue outside the "But $200,000 means the multi-millionaire owes them everything" people.
 
Ugh, Why am I feeling more cringey about a Ted Cruz Presidency than I am A Trump one? And that's already pretty fucking cringey.
 
brainchild said:
Oh, this is lovely.
Click to expand...
Prodigal Son said:
Right...
Click to expand...
BowieZ said:
Don't worry, everyone's assumption that Hillary is more "electable" is definitely FACTUAL.
Click to expand...

You know what fuck it I'm tired of people rehashing the same "GE polls don't matter before 100 days" argument every fucking thread so I'm just gonna post this image every time anyone decides reading isn't fun (because Harry Enten has a whole goddamn writeup saying exactly this which has now been up for 3 months).

qaqm8wv.png
 
brainchild said:
To the bolded, you cannot possibly know that; it's not a winning argument.
Click to expand...

Well, since it's become an issue, Hillary's polling and results have only gone up. I haven't seen any data points to suggest anyone cares about this outside the people who immediately think anything connected to Wall Street is bad and evil .Former Secretaries of State, First Ladies and Senators have given speeches for money for decades.
 
GAF is on its intellectual death-bed.

Saying Hillary Clinton isn't factually more electable than Bernie sanders isn't a defence for early GE polls.

Of course GE polls aren't the most trustworthy. When did I say or imply they were?

That doesn't mean Hillary Clinton is factually more electable. The fact that we're, at all, having this discussion means that it isn't factual. This is literally the only point I have made, yet somehow it's being interpreted as being a pro-GE poll arguments. Ugh

eBay Huckster said:
The post you're responding to explicitly ponders whether GE poll results are a matter of their being worthless this early or whether Sanders really is more electable.

They are factually worthless this early.
Click to expand...

Likely to be inaccurate =/= worthless.

Worthless this early =/= Hillary is factually more electable.
 
eBay Huckster said:
You know what fuck it I'm tired of people rehashing the same "GE polls don't matter before 100 days" argument every fucking thread so I'm just gonna post this image every time anyone decides reading isn't fun (because Harry Enten has a whole goddamn writeup saying exactly this which has now been up for 3 months).

http://i.imgur.com/qaqm8wv.png[IMG][/QUOTE]

bingo

[quote="Prodigal Son, post: 197666797"]GAF is on its intellectual death-bed.

Saying Hillary Clinton isn't [I]factually[/I] more electable than Bernie sanders isn't a defence for early GE polls.

Of course GE polls aren't the most trustworthy. When did I say or imply they were?

That doesn't mean Hillary Clinton is [I]factually[/I] more electable. The [I]fact[/I] that we're, at all, having this discussion means that it isn't [I]factual.[/I][/QUOTE]

He said "It's the former, factually" directly stating that "Head to head polls don't matter right now". Nobody said Clinton is factually more electable. Stop putting words in his mouth
Click to expand...
 
The post you're responding to explicitly ponders whether GE poll results are a matter of their being worthless this early or whether Sanders really is more electable.

They are factually worthless this early. That's kind of a valid answer to the question!
 
Prodigal Son said:
GAF is on its intellectual death-bed.

Saying Hillary Clinton isn't factually more electable than Bernie sanders isn't a defence for early GE polls.

Of course GE polls aren't the most trustworthy. When did I say or imply they were?

That doesn't mean Hillary Clinton is factually more electable. The fact that we're, at all, having this discussion means that it isn't factual.
Click to expand...

if we're only allowed to talk about the most basic facts then there's not much point having a discussion
 
adam387 said:
For the record, I've never called for him to drop out. However, this shit doesn't help the party as a whole. If Bernie is serious in that he wants to see a Democrat in the White House (and I believe he is) he should be mindful of his attacks. I don't think these are damning, because the only people who care about this are Bernie supporters who already don't want Hillary.

Hillary was also paid the same amount of money to give speeches to a lot of non-profit and liberal groups. That was just her speaking fee. It's not a huge issue outside the "But $200,000 means the multi-millionaire owes them everything" people.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that you did, but it makes no fucking sense whatsoever to demand that someone competing in a primary 'play nice' with their opponent, since she's the presumed nominee. Don't know what fantasy world you guys are living in, but that's not how you win a competition.

Also, even if his target audience doesn't support Hillary, that doesn't necessarily mean that they already support Bernie. And even though some support Hillary, they may do so without realizing that they may disagree with her on certain things.

Not every vote is set in stone, and people are free to change their minds. Furthermore, even though someone would support a candidate in theory, it doesn't mean they do in practice. Maybe they aren't motivated enough and need to be pushed a little bit.

When analyzing the dynamics of politics, you cannot discount the fragility of human psychology and persuasion. You can't just line up a demographic's best interests with a matching candidate and assume that they're voting for their respective candidate; it's not that black and white.
 
AlteredBeast said:
Lots of Bernie love in Nebraska today. Saw people at the caucus site registering democrat just so they could vote for bernie. :)
Click to expand...

That's what me and some others are doing tomorrow in Maine. This is our first caucus and we didn't even know what it entailed until yesterday. We still don't know what to expect.

But we are going. It's important.

I will ultimately vote for Hillary just as quickly as I would vote for Bernie in November, but I would more happily vote for Sanders. That's why we are caucusing tomorrow. I don't want to be complacent and then wish it was different.
 
Prodigal Son said:
GAF is on its intellectual death-bed.

Saying Hillary Clinton isn't factually more electable than Bernie sanders isn't a defence for early GE polls.

Of course GE polls aren't the most trustworthy. When did I say or imply they were?

That doesn't mean Hillary Clinton is factually more electable. The fact that we're, at all, having this discussion means that it isn't factual.
Click to expand...

GAF has really disappointed me this election cycle.
 
ciaossu said:
I just watched this and apparently I didn't know what a caucus is... what the fuck

Why the hell is this still a thing??? Are there seriously states where you can't just, vote, and you have to deal with this bullshit townhall things?
Click to expand...

Haha, I can't even image what this is like. Sitting in a room for like an hour while people try to peer pressure me into voting for who they want me to is not how this is supposed to work. This is the first cycle I've realized that this system is a joke, and I'm glad to see confirmation by others in here that yep, it's just as dumb as it sounds.
 
adam387 said:
Well, since it's become an issue, Hillary's polling and results have only gone up. I haven't seen any data points to suggest anyone cares about this outside the people who immediately think anything connected to Wall Street is bad and evil .Former Secretaries of State, First Ladies and Senators have given speeches for money for decades.
Click to expand...

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Polling data does not and cannot account for everyone and every demographic, and the rationality behind their support.

Furthermore, even those who do draw connections from Hillary to corruption don't necessarily support Bernie Sanders, which was my point.
 
brainchild said:
I didn't say that you did, but it makes no fucking sense whatsoever to demand that someone competing in a primary 'play nice' with their opponent, since she's the presumed nominee. Don't know what fantasy world you guys are living in, but that's not how you win a competition.

Also, even if his target audience doesn't support Hillary, that doesn't necessarily mean that they already support Bernie. And even though some support Hillary, they may do so without realizing that they may disagree with her on certain things.

Not every vote is set in stone, and people are free to change their minds. Furthermore, even though someone would support a candidate in theory, it doesn't mean they do in practice. Maybe they aren't motivated enough and need to be pushed a little bit.

When analyzing the dynamics of politics, you cannot discount the fragility of human psychology and persuasion. You can't just line up a demographic's best interests with a matching candidate and assume that they're voting for their respective candidate; it's not that black and white.
Click to expand...

Well, I believe that we're at the point in the race where it's statistically improbable that Bernie can come back from this. The trends aren't in his favor, March 8th and 15th will be hell, and the national numbers are trending towards Hillary. There's nothing wrong with fighting, but there is bad strategy in forcing an issue that only has the chance to hurt the presumptive nominee. (And I'm not calling her that yet, because I don't believe in counting all of my chickens before they hatch.)

The polls show us that Hillary's support is more firm than Bernie's. He's free to attack her if he wants. That doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea. The demos that Bernie would have needed to improve with I don't see being swayed by this, if they haven't already been swayed by the plethora of times he's shouted Millionaires! Billionaires! Wall Street!

This attack is weak to me because it doesn't expand the conversation. It's a weak character attack from an angle Sanders has already been driving into the ground with Thor's mighty hammer. I see no one for whom this issue would be a motivator who isn't already in the Bernie camp. Even if there are huge groups of undecideds, there aren't enough to sway states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida to Bernie. He needed another line of attack and he needed it about two months ago.
 
Dr. Benton Quest said:
CNN calling it 'Super Cruz-day'.

This is some garbage coverage. What happened to this network?
Click to expand...

They started realizing Trump might actually run away with this thing is what happened.

Prodigal Son said:
You're right.

He said it doesn't prove Sanders is the more electable. It arguably doesn't, which was his point.

I misinterpreted his post entirely. My bad.
Click to expand...

It's fine - happens to me sometimes.

(I do think I should start posting that R² image more regularly, particularly during the summer months of Oh God These Margins Are Swerving Wildly.)
 
Kyosaiga said:
He STILL hasn't produced any receipts for the accusation.

He should fuck off.
Click to expand...


If Hillary will be tough on Wallstreet, why are they funding her?
If you think she will be tough, that means that Sanders will be tougher at least right?
What's the right level of toughness? The one that is supported by Wallstreet donations or the one not supported by Wallstreet donations?

EVEN IF politicians are not affected by who donates to them (hahaha anyone believe this for a second???) do you think big money should be allow to rig our elections? Because this point is completely undeniable. Should corporations and people with more money be allowed to skew results by funding adds and campaign expenses?

If Hillary needs big money to win an election, she will need it to win a reelection. Will these same donors be there next time if she doesnt do their bidding?

The corrupting influence of money in politics is not only APPARENT, it is INEVITABLE given the way the system works.
 
Murphy's Law is in full effect for the GOP establishment. I'm wondering if Romney's meddling this week created a backlash against Rubio.
 
Lady on CNN saying the media is also responsible for Trump's rise because they didn't really challenge him or treat him not like a joke.

Edit; SE Cupp looks miserable. Internally she is preparing herself to vote Clinton in the general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Godzilla x Kong: Supernova | Mar 26, 2027
22
569
Halo is Back replied
Parking is getting super dumb...
41
3K
Avid Reading Horse replied
Ozzy and Black Sabbath (original lineup) playing one final show on July 5
24
2K
Comfortgel replied
The Final Season of Superman & Lois is doing the Death of Superman story
2
58
5K
Dragon_Rocks replied
Everything including preorders is 30% off from Criterion Collection now through 5/26
5
214
SpiceRacz replied
Top Bottom