| Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32075 Posts
On March 04 2020 19:18 Mohdoo wrote: Warren asking for donations after getting 3rd in her own state. it's astounding she hasn't dropped yet, I would imagine there is significant enough overlap between Bernie and Warren voters to change the landscape yesterday | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21787 Posts
On March 04 2020 10:41 Zambrah wrote: Cut your nose to spite your face has never been particularly helpful.It's not about idealogical purity it's about making a point that the DNC can't just push whatever fucking old moderate Alzheimer having old white candidate and choose the president almost on their own. The system is a race to the bottom and at some point we have to deal with not just hitting rock bottom. Sanders energizes the youth but that doesn't mean shit because the youth doesn't vote. On March 04 2020 20:44 QuanticHawk wrote: it's astounding she hasn't dropped yet, I would imagine there is significant enough overlap between Bernie and Warren voters to change the landscape yesterday Warren is a Democrat first and a Progressive second. Staying in helps the party candidate in Biden win from the outsider trying to break in, Bernie. I would expect the DNC has offered support under the table or in things like her senate re-election in exchange for staying through super tuesday. And it looks to have worked. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
| ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On March 04 2020 20:44 QuanticHawk wrote: it's astounding she hasn't dropped yet, I would imagine there is significant enough overlap between Bernie and Warren voters to change the landscape yesterday I'm rooting for Sanders as much as the next guy, but as others and I have said it already, there was Bloomberg to change the landscape too, in the opposite direction. I cannot in good conscience say that Bernie would have won if it was 1:1 against Biden, in fact by the numbers it kinda looks like the opposite would be the case. Bloomberg not only won more than Warren, he's in very clear opposition of Sanders. A fact that the Sanders campaign tried to milk, but apparently it didnt work well enough. I mean it looks like Biden gonna come out on top in Texas. 3rd is Bloomberg. Texas was polling very well for Bernie, even in the most recent polls. There was the big latino voter-base, there was Chuck Rocha, and it wasnt enough, Bernie lost is, along with every single southern state. He lost them big, every state that was kinda up for grabs, it was taken by Biden. California final tally is not yet in, a significant margin there could help Bernie, but that doesnt change the fact that he's gonna come out way behind in delegates, and he's 4/15 as far as races go. The more I look at it the worse it seems for Sanders. It seems like endorsements do work wonders. Clyburn endorsed Biden in SC, the bleeding stopped and he started shooting up. Beto helped him in Texas, Amy secured him Minnesota, Pete's endorsement probably helped across the board in most states, black communities delivered for him after the party came out for Biden. I mean it's hard to deny it, it doesnt look good for Bernie and he has no path forward if nothing changes. Florida's gonna go for Biden along with all the south, east cost gonna be a split at best, as things stand now. Bernie needs to humiliate him in a debate, or rather Biden needs to humiliate himself, put up a display so bad that common people (casual viewers) would start saying he has dementia or something. Or somehow the virus gets worse and Sanders comes ouot way ahead of the discussions about that... something big like that, cuz else this thing is over. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On March 04 2020 16:12 PhoenixVoid wrote: As Introvert pointed out, young voters did not rally as much as expected, which hurt Sanders especially. For all the Sanders enthusiasm among those voters (especially on Reddit, Twitter and even this thread), it hasn't translated into tangible votes. Voter turnout is up overall but the majority of it is coming from people over 40, out pacing young voters. It's a surprise but not really unexpected as young voters just don't vote in primaries. That being said it does make it seem like bloomberg actually holding Biden back quite a bit as the old demographic is also bloombergs demographic. | ||
|
Razyda
784 Posts
Have also a question: What happens with delegates of withdrawn candidates? Are they like deleted? or automatically passed to whoever withdrawn candidate decided to support? (latter seems a bit like race fixing...) | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21787 Posts
On March 04 2020 21:27 Razyda wrote: You have to remember the US is much more conservative then Europe so Sanders represents a much more 'extreme' point of view which can scare off the 'average' voter.First to admit that i know next to nothing about US politics, but I would say that Biden is unlikely to beat Trump, Bernie though may have a shot. Biden seems like " lets just keep going" candidate, Bernie more like "lets make some change" candidate (people have tendencies to vote for change recently). Guess what I am trying to say is that Biden will get democrats who would vote any democrat vote for him, while Sanders may get those and some more. On a side note even completely alien to US politics I heard about Sanders every now and again over the last few years, Biden though I only heard about, as a favourite to win Democrats nominee (and some Ukraine phone calls). Have also a question: What happens with delegates of withdrawn candidates? Are they like deleted? or automatically passed to whoever withdrawn candidate decided to support? (latter seems a bit like race fixing...) | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On March 04 2020 21:27 Razyda wrote: First to admit that i know next to nothing about US politics, but I would say that Biden is unlikely to beat Trump, Bernie though may have a shot. Biden seems like " lets just keep going" candidate, Bernie more like "lets make some change" candidate (people have tendencies to vote for change recently). Guess what I am trying to say is that Biden will get democrats who would vote any democrat vote for him, while Sanders may get those and some more. On a side note even completely alien to US politics I heard about Sanders every now and again over the last few years, Biden though I only heard about, as a favourite to win Democrats nominee (and some Ukraine phone calls). Have also a question: What happens with delegates of withdrawn candidates? Are they like deleted? or automatically passed to whoever withdrawn candidate decided to support? (latter seems a bit like race fixing...) The question is very interesting and doesnt have a super-clear answer, it s a bit up for interpretation. They dont get deleted, certainly, in case of a contested convention (nobody has majority going in) they re gonna be there (these are actual people) and are gonna vote for someone. Presumably for the one that their candidate endorses, but afaik there arent any strict laws in this regard, a delegate can choose not to vote for the guy his/her candidate endorses. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21787 Posts
On March 04 2020 21:27 Razyda wrote: First round of voting at the Convention they vote for their candidate (effectively wasted). After that they can vote how they want. But its not likely to matter much since after the first round of votes Super Delegates get to vote aswell and will most likely swing things much more decisively.First to admit that i know next to nothing about US politics, but I would say that Biden is unlikely to beat Trump, Bernie though may have a shot. Biden seems like " lets just keep going" candidate, Bernie more like "lets make some change" candidate (people have tendencies to vote for change recently). Guess what I am trying to say is that Biden will get democrats who would vote any democrat vote for him, while Sanders may get those and some more. On a side note even completely alien to US politics I heard about Sanders every now and again over the last few years, Biden though I only heard about, as a favourite to win Democrats nominee (and some Ukraine phone calls). Have also a question: What happens with delegates of withdrawn candidates? Are they like deleted? or automatically passed to whoever withdrawn candidate decided to support? (latter seems a bit like race fixing...) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
| ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On March 04 2020 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote: Is there a statistical explanation for why they haven't called California on CNN and MSNBC yet? It's at 76%, the difference is 8.8% now between 1st and 2nd. It can be called for Sanders, but it s not unreasonable not to call it, with 24% not counted, which are almost all late-deciders. Late-deciding voters went for Biden in other states by a massive margin. Californians can vote by mail afaik, so as long as they stamped their ballot today and sent it, it's valid, even if it arrives 1-2 days from now. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On March 04 2020 22:19 Geo.Rion wrote: It's at 76%, the difference is 8.8% now between 1st and 2nd. It can be called for Sanders, but it s not unreasonable not to call it, with 24% not counted, which are almost all late-deciders. Late-deciding voters went for Biden in other states by a massive margin. Californians can vote by mail afaik, so as long as they stamped their ballot today and sent it, it's valid, even if it arrives 1-2 days from now. I went to check and none of the numbers match. People can check themselves that MSNBC, CNN, and AP are all using/reporting different numbers of votes and % reporting. Fox and the AP vote numbers match, but not % in, MSNBC has 1% less than fox is reporting in with more votes for example. That's just to say I can't determine if any of those are accurate or current. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 04 2020 22:37 GreenHorizons wrote: I went to check and none of the numbers match. People can check themselves that MSNBC, CNN, and AP are all using/reporting different numbers of votes and % reporting. Fox and the AP vote numbers match, but not % in, MSNBC has 1% less than fox is reporting in with more votes for example. That's just to say I can't determine if any of those are accurate or current. The beauty of the American voting system at work. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On March 04 2020 22:43 NewSunshine wrote: The beauty of the American voting system at work. I mean the AP never even called Iowa so I'm trying to maintain a shred of faith in electoral results and it is slipping. We've literally overthrown governments for less sketchy election result reporting. | ||
|
Garbels
Austria653 Posts
The proposal to use the fire extuingisher doesn't get any support because it was never neccesary before and, god damn it, it was $29.49 at target and is still good for a few years. Stopping grandpa from chucking socks into the fire, because he likes to feel warm one last time, should be enough anyways. Meanwhile junior is mildly annoyed by the smoke but to busy playing fortnite to do something. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
I would rather be disappointed that Biden takes it in the end and get on with my life. But I can't, because there's no structure keeping track of this stuff, so we maybe don't really know yet. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On March 04 2020 22:56 NewSunshine wrote: It's pretty appalling. We've practically built an industry around obfuscating our own elections and turning it into an incomprehensible black box. Then the superdelegates/electoral college/whatever swoop in, pick whatever, and pretend they interpreted the whole mess. Nobody knows wtf is going on. I would rather be disappointed that Biden takes it in the end and get on with my life. But I can't, because there's no structure keeping track of this stuff, so we maybe don't really know yet. Well when Biden talks about working with Republicans, we can be sure this feature is one of several common causes. Republicans don't want people to be able to audit these things real-time themselves either. We saw what transparency did to Iowa. Iowa Democrats put forth results no one (but Pete) will affirm because we can see right in front of us they botched the math and result reporting and simply refused to fix enough of their mistakes to demonstrate legitimate results. If it turns out again that California actually put Bernie ahead in delegates despite primetime reporting forecasting Biden ahead for days it'll be very reminiscent of Iowa. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25639 Posts
On March 04 2020 22:55 Garbels wrote: Feels like the house is on fire an you decide to vote for the guy who vows to fight for a bipartisan resolution to consider turning the thermostat down to the level it was before there was smoke coming out of the nursery. The proposal to use the fire extuingisher doesn't get any support because it was never neccesary before and, god damn it, it was $29.49 at target and is still good for a few years. Stopping grandpa from chucking socks into the fire, because he likes to feel warm one last time, should be enough anyways. Meanwhile junior is mildly annoyed by the smoke but to busy playing fortnite to do something. A fine analogy sir | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
AP has Arkansas 100% of precinct reporting, with Biden at 92584 votes, CNN has Arkansas at 84% in, Biden at 93554 votes. So the 100% does not mean all votes counted clearly. California is weird. It feels like CNN's tracker is plain broken, they have Sanders at 868181 (48% in) votes while AP has him at 992304 (79% of precinct reporting) and MSNBC is over a million with 1004791 (54% in). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On March 04 2020 23:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: AP's '% of precinct reporting' must be a different measure than whatever the '% in' on MSNBC and CNN means. The numbers seem unrelated. AP has Arkansas 100% of precinct reporting, with Biden at 92584 votes, CNN has Arkansas at 84% in, Biden at 93554 votes. So the 100% does not mean all votes counted clearly. California is weird. It feels like CNN's tracker is plain broken, they have Sanders at 868181 (48% in) votes while AP has him at 992304 (79% of precinct reporting) and MSNBC is over a million with 1004791 (54% in). Just for fun I decided to check the California's Secretary of State page, and of course, different numbers and %in reported. https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic Fun | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
