2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Monster Dong


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

In your dreams.

[Mack_Again]

It's not like it's based on concrete evidence but Im not really feeling that choosing Paul Ryan as the candidate won't improve the chance of Republicans to win in general.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

Steven Crowder's done it again!

This is for all you social justice leaguers here on FYM. You know who you are!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this supposed to be a joke?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

Is this supposed to be a joke?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It's based on reality
and funny,
is that your definition of a joke.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by deep

It's based on reality

Except it isn't...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

Steven Crowder's done it again!

This is for all you social justice leaguers here on FYM. You know who you are!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Mack_Again

It's not like it's based on concrete evidence but Im not really feeling that choosing Paul Ryan as the candidate won't improve the chance of Republicans to win in general.

I mean... at least Paul Ryan, politics aside, appears t be a likeable person. Certainly can't say that about Trump and Cruz.

They still likely won't win (unless it's Sanders)... but anyone who isn't toxic would be better than who they have now.

[Hewson]

So polls showed Bernie with a 2 point lead heading into the primary in Mikal-ville and he won by nearly 14 points.

If we eliminate Super delegates from the equation, current delegate tally is Hillary 1279, Bernie 1027, not that big a deficit.

Super delegates favor Hillarity 469-31 (what a flawed system).

Honestly seems like the tide is really turning on the Democratic side. Sanders has won 7 of last 8 states. Seems people are finally waking up to how awful a candidate Hillary is, but is the horse already out of the barn?

Be interesting to see if he can beat her in her "home" state.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Hewson

So polls showed Bernie with a 2 point lead heading into the primary in Mikal-ville and he won by nearly 14 points.

If we eliminate Super delegates from the equation, current delegate tally is Hillary 1279, Bernie 1027, not that big a deficit.

Super delegates favor Hillarity 469-31 (what a flawed system).

Honestly seems like the tide is really turning on the Democratic side. Sanders has won 7 of last 8 states. Seems people are finally waking up to how awful a candidate Hillary is, but is the horse already out of the barn?

Be interesting to see if he can beat her in her "home" state.

The last several states have been extremely Bernie-friendly on demographics, first. Sanders would have to be winning every state with about 59% of the vote to have a prayer of catching up with Clinton, second. Essentially, any state where Clinton gets at least 41% of the vote is a victory for her, as it pulls Sanders further away from his target.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

also, Clinton was much closer in regular delegates to Obama in '08. Sanders is drawing more enthusiasm, but it isn't on the level of Obama in '08.

she also has 2.5m more points than him.

all of which gets to my big concern -- why can't she put him away?

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by Mack_Again

It's not like it's based on concrete evidence but Im not really feeling that choosing Paul Ryan as the candidate won't improve the chance of Republicans to win in general.

I think the convention is going to bury the GOP. Their base is angry, essentially ignoring their votes is a very bad idea. Of course, I'm all for it.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by Hewson

So polls showed Bernie with a 2 point lead heading into the primary in Mikal-ville and he won by nearly 14 points.

If we eliminate Super delegates from the equation, current delegate tally is Hillary 1279, Bernie 1027, not that big a deficit.

Super delegates favor Hillarity 469-31 (what a flawed system).

Honestly seems like the tide is really turning on the Democratic side. Sanders has won 7 of last 8 states. Seems people are finally waking up to how awful a candidate Hillary is, but is the horse already out of the barn?

Be interesting to see if he can beat her in her "home" state.

Actually, the polling showed Bernie up by 6-8 points and climbing in Wisconsin. It shocked me that she was even as close as she was.

Think of this:
midwest progressive state with one of the largest State University systems in the country.
6% African American
2% Latino
Manufacturing and blue collar state

Truly tailor made for Bernie as even his campaign said.


One thing that Bernie has been able to do in recent contests in these smaller states, is to go in and hit the 4 or 5 big college towns and get them all hyped up. They bring their friends who couldn't tell a credit default swap from a Target gift card. and they all rush the polls cause it's cool and yay for Bernie.

That said, New York will be close. I would say within 5 to 6 points. But while Bernie can pull some big rallies, New York is too large and too diverse to get the same return on his investment as he gets in a place like Wyoming or Utah, or Idaho.

Also, Bernie has won ONE state, very narrowly, that has had an African American population of over 8%.
New York is about 19% African American, 13% Latino and 7% Asian.

If Hillary wins by 5, she will get about the same amount of delegates as Bernie will have gotten from Wisconsin and Wyoming.

There are two weeks to go. A lifetime in this sort of environment.

pro's for Bernie is obviously the momentum factor

pro for Hillary - The Sanders invterview with the NY Daily News.
That was really unsettling and pretty shocking actually. Sanders whole legend is that he has had this one message for 25 years. Been a lawmaker for 30years, and he doesn't understand how to execute the centerpiece of his message.
Really stunning to me. Throw in his I could care less attitude toward ISIS and Israel, and his continuing to stand with the NRA and against the victims of Sandy Hook, should give any open minded Sanders backer real pause.

discuss.

[mikal]

LOL at Mikal-ville

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

also, Clinton was much closer in regular delegates to Obama in '08. Sanders is drawing more enthusiasm, but it isn't on the level of Obama in '08.

she also has 2.5m more points than him.

all of which gets to my big concern -- why can't she put him away?

She's has the same flip floppiness that Bill had without a fraction of the charisma... fair or not (not) many see her running simply because she was married to a president... the FBI thing can't help... And I kinda think there are a lot of hardcore liberals who feel that this is their chance to get a real left leaning president, due to the dumpster fire on the right.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Hewson

So polls showed Bernie with a 2 point lead heading into the primary in Mikal-ville and he won by nearly 14 points.

If we eliminate Super delegates from the equation, current delegate tally is Hillary 1279, Bernie 1027, not that big a deficit.

Super delegates favor Hillarity 469-31 (what a flawed system).

Honestly seems like the tide is really turning on the Democratic side. Sanders has won 7 of last 8 states. Seems people are finally waking up to how awful a candidate Hillary is, but is the horse already out of the barn?

Be interesting to see if he can beat her in her "home" state.

I wouldn't go so far as to trust what an aggregate poll says. They're nice and pretty and all-encompassing and all, but a big drawback is that averaging polls doesn't actually have meaning. If one poll says Sanders 55-45 and the next says Clinton 48-47, the proper way to pool these would be to pool the samples (weight them). You can't actually do that though, because there's no guarantee that you don't have repeat responses/matching polling techniques and questions. The aggregates show Sanders up 48-45. From a simple eyeball of other state results, you can see that there's most definitely not 7% of any state explicitly not voting for either of the candidates (these people might've said they don't know, yet, or PNTA, or left it blank). Long story short though... the polls did accurately predict Clinton to be somewhere between 43 and 47. Sanders was definitely under-forecast in margin-of-victory, but it seems as though his expected result was somewhere more along the lines of 5 percent.

Originally Posted by digitize

The last several states have been extremely Bernie-friendly on demographics, first. Sanders would have to be winning every state with about 59% of the vote to have a prayer of catching up with Clinton, second. Essentially, any state where Clinton gets at least 41% of the vote is a victory for her, as it pulls Sanders further away from his target.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I think the telling difference though is that Clinton can no longer reap the benefits of early voting and southern states. The states seem to continue to be Bernie-friendly from here on out, if only marginally at some points. A big kicker that people have missed as to why Sanders has been so successful as of late isn't just because these states have been dominantly caucus states, and it isn't because these states have been white middle class states. Sanders has routinely won the voting numbers on the day of the election (which leads me to believe that is why he is successful in caucus states). All of the early states went to Clinton. She padded up a huge lead, and it's pretty much a Sanders game from here on out. Definitely is "too little, too late" seeming, though. So, I still agree with what you're saying about Clinton winning every time she passes 40%, but I disagree that the "Bernie-friendly" thing is about to change any time soon.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

also, Clinton was much closer in regular delegates to Obama in '08. Sanders is drawing more enthusiasm, but it isn't on the level of Obama in '08.

she also has 2.5m more points than him.

all of which gets to my big concern -- why can't she put him away?

I really don't think it's all that relevant to compare how much closer Clinton was in 2008 to Obama. Everyone really wants to compare those two races as though Clinton is the new Obama and Sanders is the new Clinton. That couldn't be further from the truth. Sanders is a total outsider. If his message is working, it's nothing like Clinton/Obama. His ability to come back at this point is dependent upon the weakness of Hilary Clinton. I don't think that was ever the case with Clinton/Obama.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Bill had without a fraction of the charisma..

I mentioned in my post about the 92 election a few pages back how Bill Clinton was the first "cool" candidate in my lifetime, Hillary by contrast may be the least "cool" candidate I can recall in my lifetime, and that's saying a lot when you include folks like Bob Dole, Mike Dukakis and John Kerry in that list. (Kerry may have been cool when he was banging Morgan Fairchild, but by 2004 that ship had long since sailed)

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I think the telling difference though is that Clinton can no longer reap the benefits of early voting and southern states. The states seem to continue to be Bernie-friendly from here on out, if only marginally at some points. A big kicker that people have missed as to why Sanders has been so successful as of late isn't just because these states have been dominantly caucus states, and it isn't because these states have been white middle class states. Sanders has routinely won the voting numbers on the day of the election (which leads me to believe that is why he is successful in caucus states). All of the early states went to Clinton. She padded up a huge lead, and it's pretty much a Sanders game from here on out. Definitely is "too little, too late" seeming, though. So, I still agree with what you're saying about Clinton winning every time she passes 40%, but I disagree that the "Bernie-friendly" thing is about to change any time soon.


.

Basically what I was getting at.

[womanfish]

While I agree that the states coming up are not as Hillary friendly as early voting southern states. One thing that is going to give Sanders some issues coming up is that he is about to hit 3 big states with closed primaries.
NY, PA and NJ all have closed primaries. Hillary has been winning Dems by double digits and Bernie has been winning Indys by double digits.
This is definitely in her favor.
This could also be a factor in the Kentucky race, which should be fairly tight i would think...

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I really don't think it's all that relevant to compare how much closer Clinton was in 2008 to Obama. Everyone really wants to compare those two races as though Clinton is the new Obama and Sanders is the new Clinton. That couldn't be further from the truth. Sanders is a total outsider. If his message is working, it's nothing like Clinton/Obama. His ability to come back at this point is dependent upon the weakness of Hilary Clinton. I don't think that was ever the case with Clinton/Obama.

a total outsider who's been in the Senate for, what, 25+ years?

the comparisons to '08 are being made by Sanders supporters -- that he's the new Obama, able to command a stadium full of youngs with the wave of his hand. the truth, though, is that Obama's crowds were much larger, he drew off a broader coalition, and Clinton was closer to him throughout (likely due to racial anxiety amongst the working class whites who were her base in '08).

so i don't think your framing of the comparison to '08 is accurate at all.

i think his message is an important one, and one that is likely to resonate especially with the young. it also doesn't appear to have been terribly thought through. but it's emotional appeal is undeniable and obviously working.

while HRC has clear weaknesses as a candidate, i don't think we should underestimate how skilled Sanders is. he has a real message and he's sticking to it, which is part of her problem -- what is she offering beyond "i know a lot and will work really hard and do a really good job"?

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

a total outsider who's been in the Senate for, what, 25+ years?

the comparisons to '08 are being made by Sanders supporters -- that he's the new Obama, able to command a stadium full of youngs with the wave of his hand. the truth, though, is that Obama's crowds were much larger, he drew off a broader coalition, and Clinton was closer to him throughout (likely due to racial anxiety amongst the working class whites who were her base in '08).

so i don't think your framing of the comparison to '08 is accurate at all.

i think his message is an important one, and one that is likely to resonate especially with the young. it also doesn't appear to have been terribly thought through. but it's emotional appeal is undeniable and obviously working.

while HRC has clear weaknesses as a candidate, i don't think we should underestimate how skilled Sanders is. he has a real message and he's sticking to it, which is part of her problem -- what is she offering beyond "i know a lot and will work really hard and do a really good job"?

Oh come on. You know exactly what I was implying. He's a total outsider from the establishment of the Democratic Party. He has liberal ideas and caucused with the Democrats, but he's been an independent for his 25+ years.

Who is calling Sanders the new Obama? I'm not comparing anyone to anyone in 2008. That's what you're doing. Nobody is like Obama, and Hilary Clinton is, if anything, just like herself.