Super Tuesday 4. I'm really feeling (The After Bern) March 22, 26 contests

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wafflecakes said:
At what time do we expect to start getting results today?

...or are the networks even going to bother covering it considering the events in Brussels?
Click to expand...

Polls close in part of AZ at 9:00EST. Results will start coming in, but there will be no characterizations of the race until at least 10:00pm EST in Arizona. Utah and Idaho are caucuses, so who the heck knows. I think the GOP has until 1:00am to caucus online in Utah.

MSNBC said their coverage would begin and 9:00pm and would split between the election and Brussels.
 
Iolo said:
So, after last week when his numbers were "off" by just a bit, he "adjusted" his model by adding 6 more variables to his previous 3 (hi shinra!), yielding this week's predictions:

screen-shot-2016-03-22-at-12-03-04-pm.png


In case graphics got you down, here's the text version of Bernie's win%:

AZ-56%
ID-79%
UT-75%

Later tonight we can marvel at its accuracy.
Click to expand...

Idaho might be in the ballpark, and UT will definitely be a Bernie win (I seriously doubt it will reach the 75-25 level), but that AZ number is so far off the mark that I can't take this guy's predictions seriously. Polling has been consistently accurate, and the state is a closed primary, where polling generally does a much better job.

Also, I think the whole idea of determining voting results largely through social media is a joke. All Twitter and Facebook do are give disproportionate weight to a group of voters that don't come out and actually vote when the time comes. Likes and tweets don't elect nominees, after all.
 
adam387 said:
Polls close in part of AZ at 9:00EST. Results will start coming in, but there will be no characterizations of the race until at least 10:00pm EST in Arizona. Utah and Idaho are caucuses, so who the heck knows. I think the GOP has until 1:00am to caucus online in Utah.

MSNBC said their coverage would begin and 9:00pm and would split between the election and Brussels.
Click to expand...

CNN to have a triple split screen with Brussels, election coverage and empty Trump podium.
 
adam387 said:
His Superdelegate strategy is absolutely ridiculous. It's the same thing Hillary tried in 2008. A few months ago, Bernie was complaining about how terrible and undemocratic they are. Now he wants them to support him over Hillary.

His argument on CBS on Sunday was "Super Delegates should support me in the states that I won. In states that I didn't win, they should support me anyway because I'm more electable."

If a campaign is saying that stuff publicly, it's not a good sign for their internals.
Click to expand...

Yes this is kind of nutty. Like, it was pretty reasonable to complain a while ago that "counting" superdelegates for Clinton in delegate totals was silly because if Sanders were to pull ahead in pledged delegates we'd expect a lot of superdelegates - probably a majority, even - to abandon Clinton. That's what happened with Obama. The superdelegates aren't really there to bias things in favor of the party establishment's choice in the ordinary course of things. To the extent that they serve a purpose other than ratifying the clear democratic choice it's as an anti-Trump measure. You use them to deny the nomination to a total disaster of a candidate at the cost of blowing your party up. You're not expecting your eventual nominee to win at that point, but at least they won't make you look so bad losing. It is probably not worth blowing the party up in order to deny Sanders the nomination.

But if the establishment wasn't prepared to deny Sanders the nomination even if he got a majority of pledged delegates, it's just crazy to think that they might be persuaded to deny Clinton the nomination if she gets a majority of pledged delegates. Unless she is clearly disqualified by virtue of being on her way to jail or whatever, obviously the majority are just going to say "the people have spoken" and vote for Clinton.

What is sort of disturbing to me is that at this point I am genuinely unsure if Sanders understands this himself.
 
Took an hour and a half to vote today. Longest I've ever had to wait (2008 was previous winner with me having to wait 20 minutes. 1992 took a while but that was because it was in a retirement home and there was a medical emergency). Guess I have been lucky in elections past, but I was surprised by how long it took, but it makes sense since we had so many polling places close from 2014 and 2012. I'd estimate we lost at least two dozen in a ten mile radius.

Something interesting that happened too is that for the first time I got asked for my voter registration card. Usually, they just want a driver's license or something along that line, but they checked my voter card twice to check my party affiliation. Since many people don't carry that card, I wonder if a lot of people got turned away or something.
 
Damaniel said:
Idaho might be in the ballpark, and UT will definitely be a Bernie win (I seriously doubt it will reach the 75-25 level), but that AZ number is so far off the mark that I can't take this guy's predictions seriously. Polling has been consistently accurate, and the state is a closed primary, where polling generally does a much better job.

Also, I think the whole idea of determining voting results largely through social media is a joke. All Twitter and Facebook do are give disproportionate weight to a group of voters that don't come out and actually vote when the time comes. Likes and tweets don't elect nominees, after all.
Click to expand...

I think Sanders supporters are still feeling pretty emboldened after the massive MI polling miss.

Today is key for their 'make up the deficit in the latter half' strategy. He needs to soundly beat 538's targets today for that dream to stay alive.
 
adam387 said:
His Superdelegate strategy is absolutely ridiculous. It's the same thing Hillary tried in 2008. A few months ago, Bernie was complaining about how terrible and undemocratic they are. Now he wants them to support him over Hillary.

His argument on CBS on Sunday was "Super Delegates should support me in the states that I won. In states that I didn't win, they should support me anyway because I'm more electable."

If a campaign is saying that stuff publicly, it's not a good sign for their internals.
Click to expand...

Did he really say that? Can you send me a link to transcript/video?
 
Gotchaye said:
Yes this is kind of nutty. Like, it was pretty reasonable to complain a while ago that "counting" superdelegates for Clinton in delegate totals was silly because if Sanders were to pull ahead in pledged delegates we'd expect a lot of superdelegates - probably a majority, even - to abandon Clinton. That's what happened with Obama. The superdelegates aren't really there to bias things in favor of the party establishment's choice in the ordinary course of things. To the extent that they serve a purpose other than ratifying the clear democratic choice it's as an anti-Trump measure. You use them to deny the nomination to a total disaster of a candidate at the cost of blowing your party up. You're not expecting your eventual nominee to win at that point, but at least they won't make you look so bad losing. It is probably not worth blowing the party up in order to deny Sanders the nomination.

But if the establishment wasn't prepared to deny Sanders the nomination even if he got a majority of pledged delegates, it's just crazy to think that they might be persuaded to deny Clinton the nomination if she gets a majority of pledged delegates. Unless she is clearly disqualified by virtue of being on her way to jail or whatever, obviously the majority are just going to say "the people have spoken" and vote for Clinton.

What is sort of disturbing to me is that at this point I am genuinely unsure if Sanders understands this himself.
Click to expand...

What I've been trying to explain to the Sander's supporters I know who have pointed out that with super delegates he'd be ahead, is that if they didn't stick with their established chosen buddy Hillary Clinton in 2008 why are they going to all flip for Sander's?

The only argument I've heard that sounds sort of reasonable is that 'When Bernie starts winning the later states, that'll show he's the candidate people want now, and that the country has gone off of Clinton, so they should give him the win'. It's clearly deluded and ignorant of the latter states being demographically more favorable to Bernie.

But it's not as if we really need to discuss whether or not such a thing would happen.

Super delegates, as I see, serve two real purposes. They can try and *influence* voters by making it look like one candidate is further ahead than the pledged delegate difference, and they can ensure that the front runner gets over the top sooner, letting them turn their focus to the general election before the convention or whenever.

But they're never going to nuke the party unless we see a Trump esque scenario... and contrary to the dreamers, I don't think Clinton would be running or the party behind her if she was actually guilty of anything substantial and disqualifying.
 
googleplex said:
I'm 42 and black. I voted for Hillary.
Click to expand...

And your point?

egruntz said:
Where do claims like this come from? This information is just a quick Google search away. Arizona's median age is actually below the national average.
Click to expand...

Look at the post Adam made. 76% early voters are older than 45. Old people go for Hillary in every poll, primary and caucus we've had. The claim is based off of fact and likely outcome.

If old people in AZ go for Bernie against every other state I'll eat my hat.
 
blackw0lf said:
Did he really say that? Can you send me a link to transcript/video?
Click to expand...

It was a paraphrase, but yes:

In an interview with CBS’s "Face The Nation," Sanders said that in states he’s won by wide margins, the superdelegates “should listen to the people in their own state.”
“That is common sense and I think superdelegates should do that,” Sanders said.
As for superdelegates in states Clinton won, Sanders argued they should consider nominating him if he’s in a stronger position to defeat Republican Donald Trump in the general election.
“I think you're going to see some superdelegates saying, 'You know what, I like Hillary Clinton, but I want to win this thing. Bernie is our guy.’”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...nst-flipping-for-clinton-221005#ixzz43gIldfkB
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Click to expand...
 
catmincer said:
CNN don't appear to be covering the election at all. They're showing stuff related to Brussels.

I think polls close in another hour anyway.
Click to expand...

Nah, 3.5 hours for Arizona (11pm EST) 2.5/3.5 for Utah and 2.5 hours for Utah (Dems).

Probably why there isn't anything on CNN right now.
 
Since all of them are on Mountain Time, these elections will take a while. Combined with the Brussels attack and Obama's Cuba trip, we won't be seeing much coverage until after polls close.
 
Results from AZ will start coming in after 9:00pm EST. Mostly early voting and smaller areas, I'd think. That's when the polls close in most of the state.
 
Tyler got his 15 minutes of fame when he got lucky on Michigan. His predictions have generally been terrible and his whole approach to modeling is the sort of thing that any decent statistics education should disabuse you of rather quickly.
 
Probably too late now but someone should have photoshopped the below boxart for be applicable to this thread :P

snes-s_castlevania4.jpg


Nipo said:
Because most candidates do victory speeches after winning?
Click to expand...

numble said:
If you win a state, you get press time for your victory (even Kasich got one for his sole win).
Click to expand...

I mean his like special press conference he has done the past few times. They've been different than normal post primary/caucus speeches.
 
adam387 said:
His Superdelegate strategy is absolutely ridiculous. It's the same thing Hillary tried in 2008. A few months ago, Bernie was complaining about how terrible and undemocratic they are. Now he wants them to support him over Hillary.

His argument on CBS on Sunday was "Super Delegates should support me in the states that I won. In states that I didn't win, they should support me anyway because I'm more electable."

If a campaign is saying that stuff publicly, it's not a good sign for their internals.
Click to expand...
It's not hard to understand how he might not like a process, but will still do his best to make use of it for his own gain.
 
Karsticles said:
It's not hard to understand how he might not like a process, but will still do his best to make use of it for his own gain.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the intellectual gymnastics that can lead a person to say the Super Delegates should support me in states that I win because "it's the will of the voters" and then, in the same interview, say in states that he doesn't win "They should support me because I'm more electable." (An argument that most superdelegates would be very, very unlikely to buy into anyway.) Super Delegates are not designed to reflect the vote of their state. If they were, they'd simply be re-proportioned as WTA or based on proportional representation. That's not their function.

I've often said if Bernie had been serious about this he should have tried to gain superdelegate support. In most instances, he never even asked for it, but managed to throw the DNC and the party under the bus. He decided to run as a Democrat, because he knew he could raise more money and get more attention, not because of loyalty to the party. To pretend that the SuperDelegates are now going to support him after saying that out loud, and after he's, more than likely, going to lose the pledged delegate race is absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Super Nintendo World (Universal Orlando) - opens 22nd May 2025
42
1K
RetroGamingUK replied
iPhones are really hard to break
17
528
Mistake replied
Superman (2025) 4 minute scene released
2 3
126
4K
FeralEcho replied
Not really depressed...
2
50
3K
Valedix replied
Being in the hospital really sucks
2
51
2K
E-Cat replied
Top Bottom