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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shame on you for trying to put us Sanders supporters in a box! I'm not young, nor white, nor a college student. I have other Sanders supporters in my circle who are none of these things. Yes, Sanders has massive leads among those demographics but that doesn't delimit his support.

I'm not trying to put Bernie's support in a box. But at the same time, I'm just not following the huge logic leap it takes to claim that Hillary Clinton has an excitement problem that's exclusive to her when, right now, she's beating him soundly.
 
This is almost offensive.

Sorry that Hillary's base doesn't look like rallies of young white college students, maybe it's not good optics. But that doesn't look like me, and I (and people like me) matter to Hillary's base, and the Democratic part as a whole.

I'm not white and I fitted in pretty well at both Clinton's Miami rally a couple days back and Sanders Miami rally yesterday, I'm sure you would've as well.

Edit: I do think saying Hillary is not driving ANY excitement just conveys a limited and biased perspective.
 
I know we're all a bit wary of polls now (I'm sure Bernie supporters are going to outright dismiss them from now on).

Here's what Super Tuesday II looks like tho

Florida:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 9-15 points

North Carolina:
Clinton leading - 22-24 points
Trump leading - 10-20 points

Illinois:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 10-17 points

Ohio:
Clinton leading - 20-40 points
Trump leading - 3-6 points

Missouri:
No Data
 
I am worried for Bernie. I'm worried for both. But you're not accounting for the HUGE lead Clinton had coming into the race. You're not accounting for the fact that Bernie is an underdog. Before we got into this race, Sanders was written off completely. When he announced his candidacy, I never expected him to do this well -- nobody did. He's done as well as he has because of the excitement gap.

I mean, can you prove that?

Dem turnout has been low in every state, including the states that Bernie has won.

Youth turnout isn't up from 2008.

The number of voters reporting anger with government isn't up from previous years.

Something like 80% of Democrats have a positive view of Hillary Clinton and about the same amount would be happy with her as the nominee.

I just don't see any evidence of this hypothetical excitement gap.
 
I know we're all a bit wary of polls now (I'm sure Bernie supporters are going to outright dismiss them from now on).

Here's what Super Tuesday II looks like tho

Florida:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 9-15 points

North Carolina:
Clinton leading - 22-24 points
Trump leading - 10-20 points

Illinois:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 10-17 points

Ohio:
Clinton leading - 20-40 points
Trump leading - 3-6 points

Missouri:
No Data


Closer than expected in nc given Virginia and sc.

I think the polls to be more skeptical of are Illinois and ohio. Especially Illinois since it's an open primary. These states are not that different from Michigan in terms of demographics and perspective.
 
now as to the super delegates- RIGHT NOW they are supposedly mostly for hillary, but if bernie can win several more states- and his win in MI suggests that he could do that- then said delegates can...change their vote.

pie in the sky thinking, what happens if bernie does well in the midwestern states

as we have seen in michigan, clinton had a 20% lead according to the polls

yet LOST, could bernie do as well in other states and pull upsets?

sure he could. Will he is the question.

and if he does, will the superdelegates that are voting for hillary, change their vote to bernie


then there is ~may to consider, when most likely we will find out if the JD and FBI attempt to indict hillary on "espionage" due to her having received and emailed classified documents over an unsecured system.
 
Closer than expected in nc given Virginia and sc.

I think the polls to be more skeptical of are Illinois and ohio. Especially Illinois since it's an open primary. These states are not that different from Michigan in terms of demographics and perspective.

I'm more skeptical of Ohio than Illinois. I don't think Bernie's hits on Obama are going to play well in his home state. Ohio on the other hand might be right for his messaging.
 
Closer than expected in nc given Virginia and sc.

I think the polls to be more skeptical of are Illinois and ohio. Especially Illinois since it's an open primary. These states are not that different from Michigan in terms of demographics and perspective.

Definitely. But none suggest blowout wins for Bernie like he needs. I mean it's one thing to basically draw (Michigan, which was an oddity and not been seen before) another to go from a 30 point lead for Clinton to a 30 point win for Bernie.

Florida and NC polls are probably v accurate or underestimating her tho tbh, like most of the polls in the south have.

Ohio is probably Bernies best shot, and Missouri.
 
now as to the super delegates- RIGHT NOW they are supposedly mostly for hillary, but if bernie can win several more states- and his win in MI suggests that he could do that- then said delegates can...change their vote.

pie in the sky thinking, what happens if bernie does well in the midwestern states

as we have seen in michigan, clinton had a 20% lead according to the polls

yet LOST, could bernie do as well in other states and pull upsets?

sure he could. Will he is the question.

and if he does, will the superdelegates that are voting for hillary, change their vote to bernie

Probably not, because if Bernie wins slight upsets in a bunch of Midwestern states, he'll still be way behind in delegates.

If Bernie had a commanding lead in delegates, the superdelegates wouldn't stand in the way. But they're not about to switch if Hillary is winning the race.

then there is ~may to consider, when most likely we will find out if the JD and FBI attempt to indict hillary on "espionage" due to her having received and emailed classified documents over an unsecured system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
 
I mean, can you prove that?

Dem turnout has been low in every state, including the states that Bernie has won.

Youth turnout isn't up from 2008.

The number of voters reporting anger with government isn't up from previous years.

Something like 80% of Democrats have a positive view of Hillary Clinton and about the same amount would be happy with her as the nominee.

I just don't see any evidence of this hypothetical excitement gap.

Can I prove that nobody expected Sanders to put up a serious challenge to Clinton..? Just look at headlines back then. Can I prove that Clinton had a huge advantage coming in...? Use common sense. Like, how is this even an argument?

Overall turnout is a weird number to look at. Surely you'd agree that turnout would be even lower if Sanders was weaker, right?

But when you break it down, you do sometimes see it in the data.

Some polling stations in Michigan were running out of Dem ballots.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-democrats-exit-poll-analysis/story?id=37493541

For the democratic primary: "turnout among Democrats in Michigan down (and turnout among independents up) from 2008."

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/mi/Dem

Registered democrats went for Hillary, but turnout was lower than in 2008. Independent turnout was bigger than in 2008 and they went for Bernie, tipping the scales to give him the win.
 
Definitely. But none suggest blowout wins for Bernie like he needs. I mean it's one thing to basically draw (Michigan, which was an oddity and not been seen before) another to go from a 30 point lead for Clinton to a 30 point win for Bernie.

Florida and NC polls are probably v accurate or underestimating her tho tbh, like most of the polls in the south have.

Ohio is probably Bernies best shot, and Missouri.

He definitely needs big wins to catchup. Keeping it close or wins keep him fueled up though.
 
I know we're all a bit wary of polls now (I'm sure Bernie supporters are going to outright dismiss them from now on).

Here's what Super Tuesday II looks like tho

Florida:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 9-15 points

North Carolina:
Clinton leading - 22-24 points
Trump leading - 10-20 points

Illinois:
Clinton leading - 30-40 points
Trump leading - 10-17 points

Ohio:
Clinton leading - 20-40 points
Trump leading - 3-6 points

Missouri:
No Data

I really wonder why the data for these polls are so off for Hillary but accurate for Trump.

Wonder what is up with the Hillary data.
 
I really wonder why the data for these polls are so off for Hillary but accurate for Trump.

Wonder what is up with the Hillary data.

It's not? Not always anyway. Look at Virginia, spot on. As are most of the southern states, and Massachusetts wasn't even that far off (few points).

It's just Michigan that has got everyone suspect of the polls for Hillary.
 
I really wonder why the data for these polls are so off for Hillary but accurate for Trump.

Wonder what is up with the Hillary data.

The African-American vote has been coming out in record numbers this election, in the south anyway, and is why she's been over-performing. In terms of Michigan, they haven't had a competitive primary in like 30 years so all their models were rusty as fuck.
 
At least there is one thing I've really enjoyed about mainstream media this election - Anthony on CNN! Also even as a straight men - I will say he is damn fine

van-jones.jpg
 
Can I prove that nobody expected Sanders to put up a serious challenge to Clinton..? Just look at headlines back then. Can I prove that Clinton had a huge advantage coming in...? Use common sense. Like, how is this even an argument?

No, I'm asking you to prove your actual claim. Like it says in my post? You're saying Bernie's performance is due to the "excitement gap."

I provided a bunch of evidence that suggests there is no excitement gap.

So where's your evidence that there is one?

Some polling stations in Michigan were running out of Dem ballots.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-democrats-exit-poll-analysis/story?id=37493541

For the democratic primary: "turnout among Democrats in Michigan down (and turnout among independents up) from 2008."

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/mi/Dem

Registered democrats went for Hillary, but turnout was lower than in 2008. Independent turnout was bigger than in 2008 and they went for Bernie, tipping the scales to give him the win.

Yeah, I read this post. I didn't respond to it because benji's response seemed to pretty much cover why it's terrible evidence of any sort of excitement gap. Michigan in 2008 was pretty seriously anomalous.
 
Of those, here are the rules:

Ohio - Considered a "semi-open" primary. Means you must fill out a party affiliation form on primary day if you are not affiliated with either party. No crossvoting allowed. These tend to favor Sanders and Trump.

Florida - A closed primary. You must be a member of either party on election day to participate. Registration closed February 16th. These tend to favor candidates like Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio.

North Carolina - A "semi-closed" primary. Independent voters may vote in either primary but registered Democrats or Republicans can only vote in their respective primaries so no crossvoting is allowed. Registration closed already. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

Illinois - A closed primary. Registration is already closed. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

Missouri - A closed primary. Registration is already closed. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

Thanks, Ohio is definitely a battleground then.
 
Of those, here are the rules:

Ohio - Considered a "semi-open" primary. Means you must fill out a party affiliation form on primary day if you are not affiliated with either party. No crossvoting allowed. These tend to favor Sanders and Trump.

Florida - A closed primary. You must be a member of either party on election day to participate. Registration closed February 16th. These tend to favor candidates like Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio.

North Carolina - A "semi-closed" primary. Independent voters may vote in either primary but registered Democrats or Republicans can only vote in their respective primaries so no crossvoting is allowed. Registration closed already. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

Illinois - A closed primary. Registration is already closed. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

Missouri - A closed primary. Registration is already closed. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

It's Illinois an open primary?
 
Registered democrats went for Hillary, but turnout was lower than in 2008. Independent turnout was bigger than in 2008 and they went for Bernie, tipping the scales to give him the win.

Thank you

PoliGAF has become /r/politics for Hillary supporters
 
The big takeaway from last night was how pathetically inaccurate the polling data was in MI

I strongly believe that MI's results were mainly due to government inaction from all levels concerning contaminated water pushing for the anti-establishment Candidate who declares executive order to get more support.

I personalty believe that the President should have the right to intervene in a State when the State fails

I'm one of those guys who says ''Fuck States Rights''
 
Of those, here are the rules:

Ohio - Considered a "semi-open" primary. Means you must fill out a party affiliation form on primary day if you are not affiliated with either party. No crossvoting allowed. These tend to favor Sanders and Trump.

Florida - A closed primary. You must be a member of either party on election day to participate. Registration closed February 16th. These tend to favor candidates like Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio.

North Carolina - A "semi-closed" primary. Independent voters may vote in either primary but registered Democrats or Republicans can only vote in their respective primaries so no crossvoting is allowed. Registration closed already. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

Illinois - A semi-closed primary. Registration is closed right now but you may register on election day. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

Missouri - A closed primary. Registration is already closed. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

Illinois open for dems
 
No, I'm asking you to prove your actual claim. Like it says in my post? You're saying Bernie's performance is due to the "excitement gap."

I provided a bunch of evidence that suggests there is no excitement gap.

So where's your evidence that there is one?



Yeah, I read this post. I didn't respond to it because benji's response seemed to pretty much cover why it's terrible evidence of any sort of excitement gap. Michigan in 2008 was pretty seriously anomalous.

How do you explain how well Bernie has done in overcoming the obvious advantages Clinton had at the start?

Before this started, people assumed Jeb would get the nom. No excitement, he gets crushed by exciting candidates. Right?

Before this started, people assumed that, for democrats, Hillary was even stronger for nom than Jeb was for GOP (Hillary basically had no real opposition). Now it's much closer than anybody expected. How do you explain that?

I feel like you're pretending Clinton and Sanders started on equal grounds. That we started with a 50/50 chance between the two and Clinton has simply been outperforming Sanders to get to 60/40. The truth is, nobody expected it to even be 60/40. Clinton came in with all the advantages and Sanders was written off, but he's beaten expectations. How do you explain where we are today, other than with an excitement gap?
 
I strongly believe that MI's results were mainly due to government inaction from all levels concerning contaminated water pushing for the anti-establishment Candidate who declares executive order to get more support.

I personalty believe that the President should have the right to intervene in a State when the State fails

I'm one of those guys who says ''Fuck States Rights''

From my understanding obama could have intervened. The problem was mi governer basically gave away a ton of the budget away as tax cuts to corporations and the rich .

I dont disagree with Obama.
 
Everytime Bernie gets a win or a loss it's spun into a huge win.
Depends on your perspective. I'm a Sanders fan, and I think Michigan was a huge win. Do I think it significantly increases his outlook? No. But I recognize it as a monumentous achievement. A year and a half ago, no one could imagine he could still be in the race -- on paper, he shouldn't be significant enough for Hillary to even pay attention to him. It's a huge success story for all his supporters, regardless of whether he loses the nomination or not.
 
Can you find a single post saying that if Hillary loses, they're gonna vote Trump here on gaf? Otherwise this comparison is dumb.

I've only seen one person on GAF ever say that they would vote for Trump if Bernie loses

I stopped reading /r/politics because its too much of an echo chamber but you aren't going to find any sensible people (let alone Sanders supporters) who would vote for Trump over Clinton in a general election
 
Of those, here are the rules:

Ohio - Considered a "semi-open" primary. Means you must fill out a party affiliation form on primary day if you are not affiliated with either party. No crossvoting allowed. These tend to favor Sanders and Trump.

Florida - A closed primary. You must be a member of either party on election day to participate. Registration closed February 16th. These tend to favor candidates like Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio.

North Carolina - A "semi-closed" primary. Independent voters may vote in either primary but registered Democrats or Republicans can only vote in their respective primaries so no crossvoting is allowed. Registration closed already. Favors candidates like Clinton and Cruz.

Illinois - A semi-closed primary. Registration is closed right now but you may register on election day.

Missouri - A semi-closed primary. Registration is already closed but you may register on election day.

Missouri and Illinois are Open for Democrats. NC is semi-closed for D's. Ohio is semi-open for D's. Your mixing your self up with the R side. The only truly closed one is FL fro D's
 
How do you explain how well Bernie has done in overcoming the obvious advantages Clinton had at the start?

Before this started, people assumed Jeb would get the nom. No excitement, he gets crushed by exciting candidates. Right?

Before this started, people assumed that, for democrats, Hillary was even stronger for nom than Jeb was for GOP (Hillary basically had no real opposition). Now it's much closer than anybody expected. How do you explain that?

I feel like you're pretending Clinton and Sanders started on equal grounds. That we started with a 50/50 chance between the two and Clinton has simply been outperforming Sanders to get to 60/40. The truth is, nobody expected it to even be 60/40. Clinton came in with all the advantages and Sanders was written off, but he's beaten expectations. How do you explain where we are today, other than with an excitement gap?
You're failing to take into account one important point: this isn't Hillary's first time running for office.

We've seen her be the establishment favorite and get crushed by the exciting new guy before. It's been done before.

But it's not playing out that way. Not only had Hillary kept Bernie at bay, but she's grown a gargantuan pledged delegate lead against him. A bigger lead than Obama EVER had on her in 08.

Bernie just isn't generating anywhere near the level of excitement that he needs to. It doesn't matter that he gained. He went from being a nobody to a somebody. OF COURSE he was going to gain.
 
From my understanding obama could have intervened. The problem was mi governer basically gave away a ton of the budget away as tax cuts to corporations and the rich .

I dont disagree with Obama.
Obama should have intervened, taken it over, order the work done.

Then send a Big Bill for the Governor to pay up after the Federal's work was done
 
2008 was an uncontested primary effectively. Hillary vs. Uncommitted.
Yeah, I read this post. I didn't respond to it because benji's response seemed to pretty much cover why it's terrible evidence of any sort of excitement gap. Michigan in 2008 was pretty seriously anomalous.

So 2008 was an uncontested primary where they barely had any reason to bother voting. Now in 2016, they have a real primary.. and voter turnout for people iding as Democrats (that typically voted for Hillary) is LOWER than in 2008. More people turned out to vote Hillary vs Uncontested than Hillary vs Bernie and you think that's evidence that there isn't an excitement problem for Hillary...? How is that not backwards?

You're failing to take into account one important point: this isn't Hillary's first time running for office.

We've seen her be the establishment favorite and get crushed by the exciting new guy before. It's been done before.

But it's not playing out that way. Not only had Hillary kept Bernie at bay, but she's grown a gargantuan pledged delegate lead against him. A bigger lead than Obama EVER had on her in 08.

Bernie just isn't generating anywhere near the level of excitement that he needs to. It doesn't matter that he gained. He went from being a nobody to a somebody. OF COURSE he was going to gain.

So you're spinning "this isn't Hillary's first time running for [president]" as a disadvantage for Hillary?
 
So you're spinning "this isn't Hillary's first time running for office" as a disadvantage for Hillary? lol

What!? Of course not.

Just dispelling with this fiction that Bernie isn't doing better against Hillary because of hey evil establishment voodoo. That's simply not true. She's been beaten before.
 
How do you explain how well Bernie has done in overcoming the obvious advantages Clinton had at the start?

Before this started, people assumed Jeb would get the nom. No excitement, he gets crushed by exciting candidates. Right?

No? This is a terrible analysis of the GOP nomination race. This year is best understood as the factional collapse of the Republican party as the Southern strategy stops being effective due to the emergence of the Obama coalition. I was predicting this collapse in 2012. Go back and check PoliGAF!

Before this started, people assumed that, for democrats, Hillary was even stronger for nom than Jeb was for GOP (Hillary basically had no real opposition). Now it's much closer than anybody expected. How do you explain that?

I feel like you're pretending Clinton and Sanders started on equal grounds. That we started with a 50/50 chance between the two and Clinton has simply been outperforming Sanders to get to 60/40. The truth is, nobody expected it to even be 60/40. Clinton came in with all the advantages and Sanders was written off, but he's beaten expectations. How do you explain where we are today, other than with an excitement gap?

I mean, I don't, particularly. I don't feel the need to project my personal narratives onto the events that are taking place without having data to back them up! You're the one claiming that you KNOW why Bernie is doing so well, so you're the one responsible for defending your theory.

If you put a gun to my head and asked me to explain it, I'd probably go to what Jamelle Bouie said -- Bernie is running as an ideological candidate, and the primary consists of more invested voters, who are probably more amenable to an ideological approach. But his ideology is not sufficiently representative of the Democratic Party for him to actually win, because of the ongoing perception that he doesn't understand systemic racism.
 
Can you find a single post saying that if Hillary loses, they're gonna vote Trump here on gaf? Otherwise this comparison is dumb.

Now that you mention that....

You know what? A couple of hours ago, I had a revelation that if Bernie wins the nomination, I'm going to vote for Trump. I would rather throw the election to the republicans for four years and let them continue to destroy their own party and embitter Americans than let Bernie complete the polarization of the democratic party the same way the wingnut-right has completed theirs. Then we can let Clinton run again in 4 years and save the country, and Sanders will be dead by then. That's how I feel.

Bernie Sanders is a demagogue. He's wrong about everything, he's impervious to facts, he's excessively reductionist, he's unqualified, and the worst thing of all: he's not even a Democrat. If you want to run the progressive movement into the ground and see meaningful college reform, financial system reform, and healthcare reform all disappear in front of our very eyes, go ahead and vote Sanders. Me, the only president I would be happy with is currently the only Democrat running for office.

Also as for the ongoing discussion, Hillary doesn't really have an excitement problem (because her base is excited even if that base is old), she has an age group problem and a trustworthiness problem.

What she needs is a VP that can deal with her weak points. And for her sake I hope that the dem establishment doesn't think that her weakness is appealing to the latino vote...
 
No? This is a terrible analysis of the GOP nomination race. This year is best understood as the factional collapse of the Republican party as the Southern strategy stops being effective due to the emergence of the Obama coalition. I was predicting this collapse in 2012. Go back and check PoliGAF!
Ummm, you think Trump and Cruz are leading because racism doesn't grab GOP voters any more...?

Bernie is running as an ideological candidate, and the primary consists of more invested voters, who are probably more amenable to an ideological approach.

Yes, this is part of what people generally refer to as "excitement." It's the "finally, someone saying what I want a candidate to say" excitement. Why do you think Sanders draws bigger crowds and raises more money from small donors? Excitement!
 
now that i've had a night to sleep on it, i've realized clinton's campaign only needs to take one step to prevent this from happening in any future primary:

repeal the 26th amendment
 
Ummm, you think Trump and Cruz are leading because racism doesn't grab GOP voters any more...?

No, I think they're leading because the establishment realizes that racism isn't sufficient to win elections for the GOP any more and they spent the last four years trying to figure out how to tack away from that.

Unfortunately Eric Cantor getting immolated in 2014 showed that the base wasn't going to sit still for that.

Now the GOP is splintered into a bunch of factional parties that used to be the GOP coalition, each trying to push its candidate as the "right way" for the GOP to go. Trump, being the candidate of total racism, is actually winning, because that's what the GOP is actually about. But a Trump Party is totally unelectable in the general election. Even a party that gives this much consideration to Donald Trump is probably screwed. He's the new Goldwater or McGovern.

Yes, this is part of what people generally refer to as "excitement." It's the "finally, someone saying what I want a candidate to say" excitement. Why do you think Sanders draws bigger crowds and raises more money from small donors? Excitement!

Well, I guess when people say "excitement" I assume they mean stuff like "enthusiasm." Which isn't higher for Sanders. Or "ability to turn out new voters," which, again, Sanders hasn't demonstrated.

If by "excitement" you mean "ideological purity" then sure, Sanders has a gap there. That's the whole reason he's a bad candidate!
 
No, I think they're leading because the establishment realizes that racism isn't sufficient to win elections for the GOP any more and they spent the last four years trying to figure out how to tack away from that.

Unfortunately Eric Cantor getting immolated in 2014 showed that the base wasn't going to sit still for that.

Now the GOP is splintered into a bunch of factional parties that used to be the GOP coalition, each trying to push its candidate as the "right way" for the GOP to go. Trump, being the candidate of total racism, is actually winning, because that's what the GOP is actually about. But a Trump Party is totally unelectable in the general election. Even a party that gives this much consideration to Donald Trump is probably screwed. He's the new Goldwater or McGovern.

I agree with all that, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the GOP primary where GOP voters are excited with Trump precisely because he's an unfiltered bigot. Jeb is the other end of the spectrum -- one of the most politically correct candidates in their field, generating the least excitement.

Well, I guess when people say "excitement" I assume they mean stuff like "enthusiasm." Which isn't higher for Sanders. Or "ability to turn out new voters," which, again, Sanders hasn't demonstrated.

If by "excitement" you mean "ideological purity" then sure, Sanders has a gap there. That's the whole reason he's a bad candidate!

"ability to turn out new voters," is different, yes, but excitement and enthusiasm are what I'm talking about.

No, "ideological purity" alone doesn't get big crowds and massive amounts of small donations -- excitement/enthusiasm does, though.
 
I agree with all that, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the GOP primary where GOP voters are excited with Trump precisely because he's an unfiltered bigot. Jeb is the other end of the spectrum -- one of the most politically correct candidates in their field, generating the least excitement.

You were talking about that, and I was explaining that you were wrong and misunderstand what's happening in the GOP primary.

"ability to turn out new voters," is different, yes, but excitement and enthusiasm are what I'm talking about.

No, "ideological purity" doesn't get big crowds and small donations -- excitement/enthusiasm does, though.

So we're back where we started. You're making an assertion about the universe, and I'm pointing out that the evidence simply doesn't support it.
 
You were talking about that, and I was explaining that you were wrong and misunderstand what's happening in the GOP primary.
You seem to have this weird disconnect. Excitement and racism aren't mutually exclusive.

All I said was Jeb lacked excitement. You then go on to describe what that excitement was about, specifically, as if it somehow contradicted me (it didn't). I would have said the same thing if you'd asked me what was driving the excitement.

So we're back where we started. You're making an assertion about the universe, and I'm pointing out that the evidence simply doesn't support it.

If people weren't excited about Sanders why does he get bigger crowds than Clinton and get more individual donations than Clinton? How is that not evidence? I don't see how I'm making wild assertions. People that are excited take time to go see someone they're excited about and donate money. How is this even an argument?

edit: also this:
So 2008 was an uncontested primary where they barely had any reason to bother voting. Now in 2016, they have a real primary.. and voter turnout for people iding as Democrats (that typically voted for Hillary) is LOWER than in 2008. More people turned out to vote Hillary vs Uncontested than Hillary vs Bernie and you think that's evidence that there isn't an excitement problem for Hillary...? How is that not backwards?
 
You seem to have this weird disconnect. Excitement and racism aren't mutually exclusive.

All I said was Jeb lacked excitement. You then go on to describe what that excitement was about, specifically. I would have said the same thing if you'd asked me what was driving the excitement.



If people weren't excited about Sanders why does he get bigger crowds than Clinton and get more individual donations than Clinton? How is that not evidence? I don't see how I'm making wild assertions. People that are excited take time to go see someone they're excited about and donate money. How is this even an argument?

You guys are arguing past each other.

Pigeon is saying excitement compared to 08 or to Clinton now in terms of actual voting.

While you are arguing that individual Bernie supporters seem to be more excited than individual Hillary supoorters.

Both are fair imo. A lot of people are very excited about Bernie,however they haven't translated into more votes than clinton in 2016 or more votes than obama in 08.
 
If people weren't excited about Sanders why does he get bigger crowds than Clinton and get more individual donations than Clinton? How is that not evidence? I don't see how I'm making wild assertions. People that are excited take time to go see someone they're excited about and donate money. How is this even an argument?

Sorry, but screw crowds. That's like comparing Twitter followers.

Where is his excitement in delegates? Where is his excitement in VOTES? That's the point that's being made.

If we're going by crowd size then, hell, #TaylorSwift4Pres
 
You're failing to take into account one important point: this isn't Hillary's first time running for office.

We've seen her be the establishment favorite and get crushed by the exciting new guy before. It's been done before.

But it's not playing out that way. Not only had Hillary kept Bernie at bay, but she's grown a gargantuan pledged delegate lead against him. A bigger lead than Obama EVER had on her in 08.

Bernie just isn't generating anywhere near the level of excitement that he needs to. It doesn't matter that he gained. He went from being a nobody to a somebody. OF COURSE he was going to gain.
Thank.

You.

This idea that Bernie is generating some unprecedented level of excitement among the future of the party that's being stunted by stalwart establishment fogies is hilariously misguided. It's so weird to see Hillary portrayed as this inevitable, regressive figure standing in the way of what the Democratic Party really wants when she's been handily defeated before by Bernie-like "visionary" figures (i.e. Obama).

Even if you remove delegates from the equation, Hillary is comfortably ahead in popular vote totals. I guess between Hillary and Bernie, Hillary really is what the Democratic Party wants.
 
Sorry, but screw crowds. That's like comparing Twitter followers.

Where is his excitement in delegates? Where is his excitement in VOTES? That's the point that's being made.

When I mention excitement, why do you assume I'm talking about votes? You guys are conflating two different things. Related, yes, but not the same thing or even a 1:1 correlation.

Delegates? The superdelegates advantage is given to establishment candidates by their very nature. That's unrelated to excitement.

Votes? More closely related to excitement, but still influenced by other things. Clinton has a much bigger and experienced political machine that helps her get votes. She has more name recognition and that helps her get votes. It's things like that that Sanders is having to overcome. That's what makes him an underdog. That's why his small victories are a bigger deal. That's why there can be an excitement gap without him necessarily winning.

While you are arguing that individual Bernie supporters seem to be more excited than individual Hillary supoorters.

This is what people mean by excitement in the context of political campaigns. I thought that was common knowledge.

This idea that Bernie is generating some unprecedented level of excitement

To be clear, I never suggested Sanders is generating unprecedented levels of excitement. I was speaking purely in relative terms to Clinton.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom