|
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 March 09 2016 10:01 kwizach wrote:
The A.P. calls Mississippi for Clinton, as expected.
Hillary is fantastic at winning in the states that aren't going to vote for her in the general election.
On March 09 2016 10:19 Ghanburighan wrote:As so many people were posting the "isidewith.com" compass, I tried it as well. I got Bernie Sanders (no way) and the person who I'd actually vote for isn't even on the list  The problem is their very unorthodox choice of election issues. Most of those questions I couldn't care less about, and they aren't pushed by the candidates, they aren't being talked about, and they most certainly don't correspond to what voters are indicating as their most important issues (foreign policy not represented, hello). So my response was basically random. If you want to try a more adequate election compass done by social scientists, try this: www.societly.com
These are issues that Americans tend to care about the most. Obviously being from East Europe means that your most important issues aren't even going to be addressed because that's not what Americans care about. Given that I also fall into that crowd, I can sympathize - I agree with the Republicans on a lot more than these polls give credit for, and I think both sides are horribly wrong on more issues than the survey even addresses.
|
On March 09 2016 10:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2016 10:01 kwizach wrote:
The A.P. calls Mississippi for Clinton, as expected. Yeah we're just hoping for viability honestly. Seems like we should good, but holy crap team has reports of literally hundreds of people in MS who didn't know his name. I knew internet sucked out there but damn... And how long can he keep losing before he finally starts closing the gap?
There's losses and wins all the way through the convention according to 538's chart. But it also doesn't account for Bernie winning more black voters up north (which is appearing to be the case in MI) so he can score delegates in places he wasn't expected to if that's the case.
Technically the gap got smaller over the weekend but since ME hasn't finished he's missing one there and it looks like he'll make up ground with the Dem abroad vote too.
So long as he get's viability in MS today and his lead in MI remains should be a win and a closing of the gap today. He's leading in the early results from Detroit which is kind of a big deal.
|
On March 09 2016 10:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 10:01 kwizach wrote:
The A.P. calls Mississippi for Clinton, as expected. Hillary is fantastic at winning in the states that aren't going to vote for her in the general election.
Hilary said that about Obama in 2008 and it was nonsense then as well. Just because the state wont go her way does not mean those voters dont deserve to be counted equally which they are.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the takeaway from these surveys should be that there is much more difference between trump and sanders than hillary and sanders. although they don't really properly represent how far out some of sanders' stuff is
|
On March 09 2016 10:19 Ghanburighan wrote:As so many people were posting the "isidewith.com" compass, I tried it as well. I got Bernie Sanders (no way) and the person who I'd actually vote for isn't even on the list The problem is their very unorthodox choice of election issues. Most of those questions I couldn't care less about, and they aren't pushed by the candidates, they aren't being talked about, and they most certainly don't correspond to what voters are indicating as their most important issues (foreign policy not represented, hello). So my response was basically random. If you want to try a more adequate election compass done by social scientists, try this: www.societly.com
The point of those questions is that you're supposed to say that you don't care about them.
|
On March 09 2016 10:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 10:19 Ghanburighan wrote:As so many people were posting the "isidewith.com" compass, I tried it as well. I got Bernie Sanders (no way) and the person who I'd actually vote for isn't even on the list The problem is their very unorthodox choice of election issues. Most of those questions I couldn't care less about, and they aren't pushed by the candidates, they aren't being talked about, and they most certainly don't correspond to what voters are indicating as their most important issues (foreign policy not represented, hello). So my response was basically random. If you want to try a more adequate election compass done by social scientists, try this: www.societly.com The point of those questions is that you're supposed to say that you don't care about them.
I had so many on "least", didn't seem to make much of a difference as there just weren't many "important" questions.
|
I find it unfair that a diverse state like California goes practically last in all this. By the time it gets to us it's all decided. Why don't they rotate the order every cycle? Or have the most demographically representative states (based on most recent census or something) go first? Something other than the same thing every year, where people in certain geographic areas are always underrepresented. How is this fair?
|
Impressive performance from sanders so far
|
On March 09 2016 10:28 strongwind wrote:
I find it unfair that a diverse state like California goes practically last in all this. By the time it gets to us it's all decided. Why don't they rotate the order every cycle? Or have the most demographically representative states (based on most recent census or something) go first? Something other than the same thing every year, where people in certain geographic areas are always underrepresented. How is this fair?
They were on Super Tuesday last time.
|
On March 09 2016 10:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Impressive performance from sanders so far
Curious why you think so. He's certainly going to fall further behind in the delegate count after tonight.
|
I love how people are already talking about how white Michigan and Detroit are. Like come on folks... (talking about the Hillary Twittersphere).
On March 09 2016 10:31 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 10:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Impressive performance from sanders so far Curious why you think so. He's certainly going to fall further behind in the delegate count after tonight.
not likely, especially counting the Dems abroad.
Regardless he's getting more out of tonight than the 538 chart suggests. Still plenty of work to do but it's looking like the myth of the Black voter monolith is breaking.
Mississippi and SC aren't Detroit, or Chicago, or Philly. If she or her supporters were expecting that to hold up north I think tonight will be a wakeup call.
|
Bernie leading in Michigan currently by 2-3 points
CNN just called Mississippi for Trump and he;s leading big in Michigan
|
On March 09 2016 10:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Impressive performance from sanders so far
I honestly don't get Sanders supporters. What would he need to do not to be impressive?!
He's currently going to go even further behind in delegates because he's close to his parity 538 target in Michigan but losing big in Mississippi (currently under the threshold of 15% which means 0 delegates). This is forgetting that he needs a massive turnaround as he's well behind not only in absolute terms but in terms of a realistic path to the nomination.
Furthermore, as in every state but Vermont, he mostly wins smaller counties which means his results come in earlier than Clintons. That means, as 538's Harry Enten mentioned, that Sanders will probably bleed away some of that support as the evening progresses, and might not even win Michigan because of that.
|
On March 09 2016 10:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 10:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Impressive performance from sanders so far I honestly don't get Sanders supporters. What would he need to do not to be impressive?! He's currently going to go even further behind in delegates because he's close to his parity 538 target in Michigan but losing big in Mississippi (currently under the threshold of 15% which means 0 delegates). This is forgetting that he needs a massive turnaround as he's well behind not only in absolute terms but in terms of a realistic path to the nomination. Furthermore, as in every state but Vermont, he mostly wins smaller counties which means his results come in earlier than Clintons. That means, as 538's Harry Enten mentioned, that Sanders will probably bleed away some of that support as the evening progresses, and might not even win Michigan because of that.
We can start by saying a few weeks ago he was down 30 and 20 yesterday and 10 this morning. That's a 30 point swing in a couple weeks.
538 didn't even have this performance from Bernie in their polls plus projection. Even if he lost that means he could swing other states similarly.
|
There's more to an election than winning, particularly when in a bipartisan nation that desperately needs political differentiation in representation.
|
On March 09 2016 10:31 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 10:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Impressive performance from sanders so far Curious why you think so. He's certainly going to fall further behind in the delegate count after tonight.
Has he ever been ahead in a Michigan poll?
He is exceeding expectations.
|
I see Rubio dropping out before Florida.He's done.Endorse Kasich and maybe he can win Ohio.
|
On March 09 2016 10:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 10:31 On_Slaught wrote:On March 09 2016 10:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Impressive performance from sanders so far Curious why you think so. He's certainly going to fall further behind in the delegate count after tonight. Has he ever been ahead in a Michigan poll? He is exceeding expectations.
The closest he was (in public), was in a poll this morning that had him 9 points behind
Here's what 538 was projecting: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/
|
Looks like Kasich work's helped him out in Mi.
|
On March 09 2016 10:42 farvacola wrote:
There's more to an election than winning, particularly when in a bipartisan nation that desperately needs political differentiation in representation.
This makes no sense at all. Winning is the only thing in an election. Americans will forgive anything for a winner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
