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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If he wanted to get an advantage, he should have gone after the email scandal from the beginning and added on to that by talking about the speeches. His relative consistency is one of the strengths that he plays to best, but this line of attack simply doesn't work because he waved the emails away. Not that I think the emails or the speeches are very scandalous, but Bernie clearly missed his chance, and his current efforts aren't going to do half as much as they could have.

I agree. Hillary came in with such a commanding lead he had to persuade people who were already committed to her to not vote for her. You don't do that by saying "I agree with the Secretary..." constantly. He only managed to paint himself as exactly what he is..slightly to her left on some issues, slightly to her right on guns. That wasn't enough, in my opinion, to break up her coalition of support.

Well, that and his complete inability to make inroads with the AA community. He, literally, couldn't have done worse.
 
Well, no, we won't see because it's highly doubtful Bernie's going to make it to the General. But, we don't even have to look outside the Democratic primary. In nearly every state, Hillary's won the question on who can best handle health care. (She's also won the economy one too, I believe, although don't quote me on that because I've not gone through all the exit polls right now.)

People are stupid. You have candidate A saying "I'm going to cut your taxes" or candidate B saying "I'm going to raise your taxes....BUT..." they're going to tune out. When you have to explain something, you're losing. Things need to be simple.


Do you have links on how she won on healthcare in the states that have voted thus far?
 
As of 25 minutes ago, 80% of precincts had reported in for Kansas. If it wasn't close, they'd have released the winner by now.

Maybe the Kansas rules state they have to play best 2 out of 3 games of Monopoly in case of a tie.
 
Maybe the Kansas rules state they have to play best 2 out of 3 games of Monopoly in case of a tie.

At what point does Grandma get yelled at by Uncle Mark after she mortgages her one property to stay in the game?
 
Do you have links on how she won on healthcare in the states that have voted thus far?

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/va/Dem
Sure, for people who said healthcare was the most important issue, they broke thusly:

In Georgia it was 78/22 Hillary.
In Mass, it was 59/41 Hillary.
In Iowa, 59/38 Hillary.
In Texas, it was 69/30 Hillary.
In Nevada, it was 62/36 Hillary.
In Virginia, it was 73/27 Hillary.

In Oklahoma, that Bernie won by 10 points he only won the healthcare issue 50/48.
 
At the end of the night both Cruz and Trump will probably have earned a similar amount of delegates. Both far ahead of Rubio.

Rubio gets to win PR tomorrow at least.
 
Do you have links on how she won on healthcare in the states that have voted thus far?

A lot of people are actually happy with their healthcare, I know I'd rather keep mine than risk changing it to some government plan of questionable quality.
 
People are stupid. You have candidate A saying "I'm going to cut your taxes" or candidate B saying "I'm going to raise your taxes....BUT..." they're going to tune out. When you have to explain something, you're losing. Things need to be simple.

Politics is very much show me the money (results).

To do what Bernie is doing, you need to only talk of the benefits and you need to have a majority in congress to pass it against opposition and people to start getting the benefits before the next election. Even than, as Obama did, you might lay the price in a few years time.

Bernie can't bring that proposal to the general unless he's riding a wave election on it. Unless thing change from now to March 15, it's not looking good.
 
100% of kansas dems showed up.

avatar.jpg
 
Reality doesn't change because you feel it has changed.

The scientific process starts with an unproven hypothesis.

I'm more convinced on the polarization point - lowering the amount of potential variance in general election polling would mean the findings aren't as clear-cut of a point - than I am on the "earlier interest" point. If only because you can directly measure the latter via participation in primaries and caucuses - and 2008 aside, nothing looks so abnormally high on that front that it would flip 60 years of consistent findings on their head.

If you had easy access to newspaper and other media coverage, you could compare front pages and things like that. I don't think that stuff is free though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom