Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 22:25:45 GMT -5
bernie freakin' sanders is going to win michigan. this should have been a slam dunk by hillary. is she the best the democrats can come up with? she really is a dreadful candidate.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 8, 2016 22:37:52 GMT -5
bernie freakin' sanders is going to win michigan. this should have been a slam dunk by hillary. is she the best the democrats can come up with? she really is a dreadful candidate. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion just yet. Detroit has only been half way counted. I think she may just squeak by if she holds her margins. If you're looking at voting maps, it's not over. I think this might turn out to be Iowa 2.0, which wouldn't help Bernie too much. Though, it's a great night for him for sure so far. However, as many have pointed out. He needs to win big in future states to make up for his large delegate hole among pledged delegates (that's not including super delegates). I would also point out that when Sanders has loss, like in Mississippi, they've been large losses. Remember, these delegates are allocated proportionally. Of Bernie's losses, only three so far have been under 4 points. The rest have been 25+ point loses. I don't think that really is a mark of a good candidate either.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 8, 2016 23:01:10 GMT -5
Also, an interesting note from a blogger on 538:
CLARE MALONE 10:56 PM
"We’re still waiting on the Michigan Dems’ side of the results, where the race is looking unexpectedly close between Clinton and Sanders. Exit polls coming out of the state are showing that about four in 10 Democrats said that electability and experience were most important to them — those people leaned Clinton — and six in 10 said honesty or empathy were most important, and those are people who have tended toward the Sanders side of the equation.
This, from our friends at ABC News, is interesting: “Eight in 10 voters in the Democratic contest in Michigan were more interested in an experienced candidate than in an outsider,” and although in the past Clinton has won this group by seven out of 10, her share in Michigan of this demographic is “just more than half” right now.
Could it be that some “main line” Michigan Dems — the exit polls say that seven out of 10 voters in the primary identify this way — decided that Clinton probably had things sewn up and decided to go with bit of a “heartstrings vote” in the form of Sanders? Maybe."
That sounds very much like Dewey v. Truman. One of the few things that makes sense.
If there has been one Achilles heal of the Clinton campaign, it's been overconfidence. They were outspent 5:1 in tv ads in Michigan. It's what cost her 08' in my opinion. It won't cost her 16' though, but she doesn't like making it easy on herself. That is clear.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 8, 2016 23:06:39 GMT -5
Also, a great take from Nate Silver on Michigan:
NATE SILVER 11:04 PM
"I said in our Slack chat today that I had a “gut feeling” that Sanders could beat his polling in Michigan. I also said, for the record, that you should mostly ignore that gut feeling. But it wasn’t a total shot in the dark. There were a few things that made me think a closer-than-expected result was possible:
Our demographic model, as opposed to our polling model, suggested that Michigan could be relatively competitive. It had Sanders winning Michigan by 4 in an even national race. The national race isn’t even — instead, Clinton is up by 13 percentage points in our national poll average. But still, that would extrapolate to a high-single-digit or very-low-double-digit win for Clinton, and not the blowout pollsters were expecting. As I wrote earlier today, complacency was a risk for Clinton voters in Michigan, especially with an open primary with voters potentially casting ballots in the Republican contest instead. “In sports, we’d call Michigan a ‘let-down game,’” I said. Michigan has a history of polling upsets, such as John McCain winning the Republican primary in 2000 and John Engler beating Jim Blanchard in the gubernatorial race in 1992 despite being way behind. Basically, I’m not sure that Michigan was ever really a 20-point race, as polls had it. Based on the demographics of the state, it probably narrowly favored Clinton. But then, perhaps some of her voters didn’t show up, or voted in the GOP primary instead, because it didn’t look like Clinton needed their vote. That might potentially be enough to push Sanders over the top, although it will be very close.
By the way, this is part of why we try to approach the primaries from multiple perspectives. Our polling averages are a useful tool, but not the only one we look at."
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 8, 2016 23:14:09 GMT -5
Rubio should just drop the fuck out. I'm all for him trying to get it to a brokered convention, but I don't even see that as viable at this point. The nomination is Trump's, and the American public have failed us all once again. It's not viable. He'll drop out. The issue for him is that he doesn't want the embarrassment of dropping before his state votes. Problem for Republicans is they need him to drop before Florida. He stays in for Florida, Cruz won't win (though I don't think Cruz is that much of a better option for a nominated candidate), and Trump will essentially be assured the nomination. There have been reports of Rubio's own people mulling the option of dropping before Florida.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 8, 2016 23:29:50 GMT -5
Looks like Michigan will be a 50/50 split.
It'll keep Sanders' campaign going for a bit, but I don't know if it significantly changed the race for him. He still has a massive hole in his pledged delegate count (that's excluding super delegates). I don't know if a 50/50 split helps all that much. It does keep March 15th from being a complete knockout blow.
Whereas Michigan made sense for a Sanders comeback, open primary and populated with large college towns, I'm skeptical about his chances in Florida, an older electorate so more likely for a big Clinton win, Illinois, Ohio, or Missouri. Sanders' best odds may be in North Carolina?
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 8, 2016 23:33:39 GMT -5
Looks like Michigan will finally go to Sanders.
Boy, I was wrong. Did not think an open primary would hurt Clinton as much as it did. I was expecting +6 for Clinton heading into tonight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 23:40:29 GMT -5
Looks like Michigan will finally go to Sanders. Boy, I was wrong. Did not think an open primary would hurt Clinton as much as it did. I was expecting +6 for Clinton heading into tonight. sing it with me:
|
|
|
Post by Guy Fawkes on Mar 9, 2016 5:47:39 GMT -5
Tom Brady in 2016...
God bless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 6:08:08 GMT -5
Tom Brady in 2016... God bless.
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Mar 9, 2016 21:54:04 GMT -5
Tom Brady in 2016... God bless. I heard a rumor that Clinton's considering making him her running mate so she can take away the Northeast vote from Sanders.
|
|
|
Post by Guy Fawkes on Mar 10, 2016 5:09:20 GMT -5
Is it just me or are there a lot more debates in this day and age? I don't remember there being this many debates even as of like 10 years ago, but, I don't really pay attention to politics, understandably so.
God bless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 7:31:08 GMT -5
/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 10, 2016 20:21:15 GMT -5
Watching yet another GOP debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 20:40:50 GMT -5
stick a fork in rubio, his campaign ends tonight. good riddance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 20:43:53 GMT -5
i just heard they have moved the start time of the debate from 8:30 to 8:55-9:00, rubio must still be changing his diaper
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 10, 2016 21:14:29 GMT -5
Kasich is fairly reasonable, to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 10, 2016 22:37:58 GMT -5
stick a fork in rubio, his campaign ends tonight. good riddance. He's got 5 days to drop. Every member of the GOP are waiting with bated breath for him to drop. Cannot emphasize how much Florida means. The same goes with Ohio. Kasick would win there easily if Rubio dropped. If Trump somehow pulls out Florida and Ohio, it's over. Even with winner take all's, he'll most likely be the nominee.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 10, 2016 22:54:53 GMT -5
Kasich is fairly reasonable, to be fair. Problem is that he probably won't be the nominee. He's purely trying to get to a contested convention. However, as I said before, if Cruz and Trump are your top delegate leaders, would Republics really skip the top two options for the third? Probably not. Not unless they want a completely fractured party. That entire party is currently being held hostage. They're staring down the barrel of Cruz(who has no chance whatsoever against Hillary) or Trump (who MIGHT have a chance against Hillary) being their nominee, with down ballot loses in the Senate and House. In a year where the White House seemed easily attainable, they're very close to losing, the White House, the Senate, The Supreme Court, and double digit loses in the House could be possible (Remember, two significant factors for candidates running for the incumbent party in the Presidential election, the popularity of the current president and the strength of the economy, both have been shooting upward lately. Both would make it very difficult to defeat a Democratic nominee). Unless, Republican donors decide to forget the White House and protect the down ballot candidates, that is the House and Senate. However, that strategy would still forfeit the White House and the Supreme Court. And there's no guarantee that they could protect enough seats in the Senate to retain a majority. But this line of thinking would give them a chance to possible retain the House and Senate, and drive up majorities in the midterm and then take a stab at 2020 after what they hope would be a dismal Hillary first term (though this was the thought process with Obama, and that plan so far has backfired).
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Mar 11, 2016 14:59:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by globe on Mar 12, 2016 7:57:42 GMT -5
haha! I love the fact this clown claims to be proud to have Scottish heritage. A complete and utter bawbag who displays absolutely no Scottish traits and who has shat on honest, hard working people here who apposed his fucking golf course. Plus seriously mate, you are minted, get a better wig FFS. Part of me who like to see him become president, just to sit back and watch the car crash it would be.
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Mar 12, 2016 9:02:54 GMT -5
haha! I love the fact this clown claims to be proud to have Scottish heritage. A complete and utter bawbag who displays absolutely no Scottish traits and who has shat on honest, hard working people here who apposed his fucking golf course. Plus seriously mate, you are minted, get a better wig FFS. Part of me who like to see him become president, just to sit back and watch the car crash it would be. D'you watch Charlie Brooker? On his end of year review show at Christmas, they described whatever's going on up there as "a sort of furry gas"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 16:12:12 GMT -5
Politics just makes me so sad.
Right if you're a business owner I totally get why you'd vote right wing. Everybody is just looking out for no.1 after all. But I just cannot get my head around ordinary low income people voting for people who would love to take away your social freedoms, regress back to a 1950's prudish false version of reality while doing everything they can to help and protect the freedoms of the rich.
You hear all the time in the media (run by rich elites) that anyone left of centre can't run an economy or has no idea how to manage a country's finances without any actual hard evidence and people just believe it for some reason :/
You can work full time now (in the UK) and not even be able to afford a one bedroom place, let alone run a car and have a life. Our current system isn't working. How the fucking fuck (sorry, I can't put it any other way) can people think this regime is acceptable? Because Channel 4 has convinced you everyone on benefits is a cheating scrounger?
People say communism doesn't work. fair enough. I'd hate to live like that. But given how badly off the lowest earners in the Uk and America are and while we have so many people on the street and living in hostels how in the hell can you say our elitist, rich mans dick sucking version of capitalism works?
Trump is in with a shout of becoming president of the USA, Clinton probably will be. Sanders and Corbyn are basically unelectable because they don't see immigrants as fucking sub-human and they treat them like people...I despair I really fucking do. I hate the world so much
Plus, as much as I hate Trump I hate those slimy, seedy, lying fucking shapeshifting reptiles Cruz and Rubio more. At the very least Trump is doing what he wants. Those two scumfucks are just slimy cocksucking puppets of the Republican party. I am not a violent person, but I'd give anything to lamp those two scumbags into last week. They make me sick just thinking about them
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Mar 12, 2016 19:57:49 GMT -5
Trump is in with a shout of becoming president of the USA, Clinton probably will be. Sanders and Corbyn are basically unelectable because they don't see immigrants as fucking sub-human and they treat them like people...I despair I really fucking do. I hate the world so much Your whole post was brilliant, but this bit in particular needed quoting again.
|
|
|
Post by As You Built The Moon on Mar 12, 2016 23:58:47 GMT -5
|
|