EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3433
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24339 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On March 23 2016 12:11 Ghanburighan wrote: The good news for Sanders is that the media never reports delegate counts (that's for Nerds like Nate and us) so Sanders is nearly guaranteed to get headlines like: "Sanders wins two states to Clinton's one". "Clinton wins critical state of Arizona, concedes Idaho and Utah" | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On March 23 2016 12:09 The_Templar wrote: Definitely not indicative of the overall result. They would have called it for Clinton already. Wolf almost jumped with glee when he read it though. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Thanks Zombie-Rubio. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24339 Posts
On March 23 2016 12:19 Ghanburighan wrote: AP called Arizona for Trump. Thanks Zombie-Rubio. Well you could add Rubio to Cruz and he still loses. I don't think they are using accurate estimates for turnout in calculating the percentages though. There are still people in line to vote in AZ | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 23 2016 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Well you could add Rubio to Cruz and he still loses. I don't think they are using accurate estimates for turnout in calculating the percentages though. There are still people in line to vote in AZ Yeah, you could add Rubio to Cruz and Trump would still win in early votes, but in (I think?) every single primary thus far Trump has done worse in day-of votes than early votes. Rubio's and other zombie candidates are a big part of why they're calling I think. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
Looks like Sanders will gain slowly but eventually lose by 5-10 at least. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
zf
231 Posts
On March 23 2016 12:24 The_Templar wrote: Has a state ever been called one way or another only for it to flip? Looks like Sanders will gain slowly but eventually lose by 5-10 at least. Famously, Florida in '00. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24339 Posts
On March 23 2016 12:24 The_Templar wrote: Has a state ever been called one way or another only for it to flip? Looks like Sanders will gain slowly but eventually lose by 5-10 at least. It's happened several times. Also where sometimes the delegate estimate is wrong and the winners of the popular vote and delegates don't match On March 23 2016 12:26 TheTenthDoc wrote: Calling a winner-take-all primary when people are still in line seems pretty damn stupid though if you want to get actual vote #s, and my impression was there are still people in line. Yeah really. They legally couldn't do it during the actual election but because it's a party thing, they try to wait till they "close". There's no way they have counted 87% of the Phoenix vote | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
edit - oh wait, I thought Coconino county had all reported, something must be up with the site | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24339 Posts
On March 23 2016 12:34 jcarlsoniv wrote: Looking over the Guardian map, there's a lot (almost all) of precincts that haven't reported. Will be interesting to see how that works out. edit - oh wait, I thought Coconino county had all reported, something must be up with the site Something is up with everything, there's no way they have been counting votes the whole time people have been voting and if they have that's extra stupid because people needed to vote more than they needed them counted tonight. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On March 23 2016 12:40 TheTenthDoc wrote: Wow the 538 people seem to actually read the muck in their Facebook feed. That or Harry Enten and I have similar thought processes about the merits of calling primaries. I was about to mention his comment as well, and I wholeheartedly agree. On March 23 2016 12:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Something is up with everything, there's no way they have been counting votes the whole time people have been voting and if they have that's extra stupid because people needed to vote more than they needed them counted tonight. Well, it would be reasonable that they have counted early votes at this point, no? Calling it based on those early votes while people are still in line to vote isn't really ok. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24339 Posts
On March 23 2016 12:42 jcarlsoniv wrote: I was about to mention his comment as well, and I wholeheartedly agree. Well, it would be reasonable that they have counted early votes at this point, no? Calling it based on those early votes while people are still in line to vote isn't really ok. I just mean the percentages of turnout don't make sense. People are still voting in Phoenix so I have to presume none of the votes cast there today have been counted yet. They don't count while people are still waiting to vote as far as I understand. They can't spare the volunteers. | ||
| ||
