|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 03 2016 00:07 Toadesstern wrote:
is there even that much point in actually winning a certain state?
I mean obviously it's good if you win (duh), but if the delegates are splitting up among the people isn't it more about wether people performed good enough or not given the state rather than about wether they won the whole thing?
Like Cruz got his win now, but from what people said that seems like one of the easier states for him right? So he would have needed a much better win to be relevant since he'll have a harder time in most other states?
If I understand this correctly (on the Republican side), this is a loss for Trump, a huge win for Rubio and despite being a win for Cruz just not a big enough one?
And for Democrats, Sanders is probably in the same shoes as Cruz, it's a win for him but he needed way more.
The Cruz win is "big" because it looked like Trump was going to beat him. Under normal circumstances Iowa is a shoe-in for a candidate like Cruz, so if he'd lost to Trump his campaign would probably have been over, especially since he's been way behind in SC. Winning means he's still in the game.
The relevance of Rubio's win depends on what happens next. If he can beat his peers in NH he's set to be the establishment favorite. If he doesn't the circus continues and it's Trump vs Cruz vs a fractured/panicking establishment.
Sanders is in worse shape than Cruz since Clinton is the one who is favored in most southern states. His prospects are certainly better than if he'd flat out lost, but he's going to need to show he's competitive in Clinton's favored states to have a chance. A lot depends on how much he can close the gap in SC, even if he can't win the state.
|
Rubio getting 3rd is a good sign, but also not in a lot of ways. He dominated Kasich and Bush. Even with their insanely low numbers, he got 3rd. How is he supposed to end up winning states over Cruz or Trump?
|
On February 03 2016 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
Rubio getting 3rd is a good sign, but also not in a lot of ways. He dominated Kasich and Bush. Even with their insanely low numbers, he got 3rd. How is he supposed to end up winning states over Cruz or Trump?
Not all states are the same. The exit polls showed that Rubio picked up most of the undecideds among Republicans. Cruz is not hugely popular in every state and Trump a base that can’t might not be able to grow. Fivethirtyeight pointed out that Trump’s ground game was terrible and failed to turn out the numbers. If Rubio seems like the likely candidate that has a reasonable chance of winning the general election, he could pick up more votes.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-comes-out-of-iowa-looking-like-pat-buchanan/
This story breaks it down. A lot of people don't like Trump. They also don't like Cruz.
|
Presumably Rubio will start winning states after a lot of these also-ran establishment candidates with 0-5% of the vote like Bush and Kasich leave the race and most of the voters gravitate to Rubio over Cruz or Trump.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
How can they call it the democratic party when the results are determined by coin toss?
|
On February 03 2016 01:30 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Presumably Rubio will start winning states after a lot of these also-ran establishment candidates with 0-5% of the vote like Bush and Kasich leave the race and most of the voters gravitate to Rubio over Cruz or Trump.
Basically this is why Iowa mattered: Trump's path to the nomination is now incredibly foggy. Had he won Iowa + NH while Rubio did middling in those states he likely would have consolidated the anti-immigration voters and faced a weakened Cruz getting ~10% plus 2 Establishment candidates, then he could ride his 40% to a win.
With Cruz in, now his numbers outside the northeast likely won't breach 30, and with Rubio poised to consolidate support, Trump has to find a new strategy, because he is almost no one's second choice and thus can't win a consolidated field.
|
On February 03 2016 01:36 Jockmcplop wrote:
How can they call it the democratic party when the results are determined by coin toss?
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10893418/iowa-caucus-2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton
just fyi
"But individual caucuses don't pick state delegates — at least not directly. Each caucus picks a set of delegates to a county convention, which then selects delegates for a district convention ... which then selects delegates for the statewide convention.
That makes four levels to the caucus process — and there are a lot more delegates at the county level (the level for which caucuses assigned delegates Monday) than at the state level. So while a coin toss at a precinct caucus definitely gives the winner an advantage, it's not as straightforward as "winning a coin toss gets you an extra delegate in the statewide count.""
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
|
|
|
On February 03 2016 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
Rubio getting 3rd is a good sign, but also not in a lot of ways. He dominated Kasich and Bush. Even with their insanely low numbers, he got 3rd. How is he supposed to end up winning states over Cruz or Trump?
He got 3rd but beat his polling average of ~17% by like 6 percentage points. That's an insanely good sign for his campaign given his lackluster polling performance and teensy investment in Iowa (I think he had 0 field offices or ground game).
|
|
|
On February 02 2016 18:16 Wegandi wrote:
Tell that to the German, Polish, Czech, etc. Jews who were disarmed. Tell that to the tens of millions of Soviets slaughtered. It's better to be armed, than not, even if you have a less than 1% chance of success. Without arms you have a 0% chance against determined foes (and no colonies like India against the British don't count because it is a completely different dynamic). If more people would read Alexander Solzhenitsyn and not have this naivete that their own Governments can never do terrible wrongs or become totalitarian, we'd start to make some progress.
This fantasy about armed Jews preventing the holocaust is bandied about without any justification. Most firearms in Germany were unregistered when the Nazis formally outlawed their possession by Jews. Jews probably owned weaponry at close to the same levels as the general populace, even after its passing. In any case, it is a highly dubious point to suggest that had the Jews not been targeted by a gun law that they then would have fought off the German Wehrmacht and avoided the holocaust.
And all this talk about going totalitarian, where exactly does this come from? While anything is possible, we are about as far from that as you can get. Our government is a body composed of peers elected by us. Sweet deal for us. Now maybe this sweet deal could be disrupted by heavily armed minorities trying to seize power where they can and disrupt the democratic process. I say we tackle that more present threat and rein in the ability of these aggressive types to purchase military grade hardware.
Oh, by the way, the US had trouble with a few million insurgents, with the full force of the military behind them. Try that in a domestic setting against 80 million supporters in a huge geographic swath and I doubt the US would win long-term. If the peasants revolt, they'll win more than likely, but it'll have a high cost...but I suspect not as high of a human cost as acquiescing to totalitarian dictates.
So let's be Afghanistan?
To be quite frank, European opinions on this issue are irrelevant. Our histories are entirely different. Our foundings different. Our values while generally both enlightenment have a more uniquely American distinction. You don't see many Americans blathering on about the outdated and ridiculous monarchical systems found in many parts of Europe still, do you?
Well, our system of law is directly inherited from England and English common law (when necessary through reception acts). Not to mention our Bill of Rights closely models the English Bill of Rights written a century before ours. Plus it copies other aspects of English law, such as the habeas corpus act. I mean, we are basically the UK with citizens in place of the monarchy.
|
On February 03 2016 01:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2016 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:
Rubio getting 3rd is a good sign, but also not in a lot of ways. He dominated Kasich and Bush. Even with their insanely low numbers, he got 3rd. How is he supposed to end up winning states over Cruz or Trump? Not all states are the same. The exit polls showed that Rubio picked up most of the undecideds among Republicans. Cruz is not hugely popular in every state and Trump a base that can’t might not be able to grow. Fivethirtyeight pointed out that Trump’s ground game was terrible and failed to turn out the numbers. If Rubio seems like the likely candidate that has a reasonable chance of winning the general election, he could pick up more votes. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-comes-out-of-iowa-looking-like-pat-buchanan/This story breaks it down. A lot of people don't like Trump. They also don't like Cruz.
Considering Trump got more votes than any previous Iowa winner I have to disagree with the premise that he "didn't turn out the numbers" Cruz had a huge ground game in Iowa the single best ground game ever there with a favorable electorate. Trump just had a slightly less record breaking turnout for him.
|
On February 03 2016 00:07 Toadesstern wrote:
is there even that much point in actually winning a certain state?
I mean obviously it's good if you win (duh), but if the delegates are splitting up among the people isn't it more about wether people performed good enough or not given the state rather than about wether they won the whole thing?
Like Cruz got his win now, but from what people said that seems like one of the easier states for him right? So he would have needed a much better win to be relevant since he'll have a harder time in most other states?
If I understand this correctly (on the Republican side), this is a loss for Trump, a huge win for Rubio and despite being a win for Cruz just not a big enough one?
And for Democrats, Sanders is probably in the same shoes as Cruz, it's a win for him but he needed way more.
For these beginning primaries, it's really more of 2 things.
1. How are polls translating into participation? We all know so many people support each candidate (and detest others), but how motivated is their support?
2. Which campaigns are practically over? You don't end up with 2-4% in Iowa/New Hampshire and seriously expect to get the nomination (except in extreme circumstances).
The first few primaries don't tell us who wins or even decide a front runner in most cases, but it does thin the field.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
media narrative and whatever positive snowball effect is pretty instrumental in some races. depending on the candidate and situation of course.
obama beat hillary largely on this effect after he did very well in the early primary states, romney i think was also beneficiary of this
|
Biggest loser last night clearly was Bernie. He really needed that win. Cruz isn't far behind him. Yeah, he won, but not by much given how much he invested in Iowa. What will be interesting to see is whether Rubio's strong showing in Iowa will translate into him knocking off Trump in New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada. It's gonna be hard for another GOP candidate to win if Trump sweeps those states.
|
United States44387 Posts
I don't know about that. We've gone from "Bernie isn't a real contender, he's a waste of time, focus on Hillary" to "well technically it was a tie and Bernie needs a clear victory". Obviously a victory would have been better but we've adjusted our expectations for his campaign upwards exponentially. He's surpassed anything we thought would happen back when his name recognition was single digits among democratic voters.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
iowa and NH are clear bernie high watermarks.
|
The thing is that it still doesn't seem like Bernie is serious, and the media is picking up on it. Otherwise all the media would be running "U.S.S.A. ?!" Headlines.
|
I'm just surprised there's actually people here on TL that is opposed to Sanders winning lol. Thought everyone on TL would be progressive and looking forward to Sanders missing Hilary by a small margin...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
