If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
She lost because Bernie was not stomped into the ground. She needed a decisive win.
"Needed" is a little strong. It's not like she's out of the race.
The big question is how much money can Sanders net from this. However much it is, it's significantly less than what he would have gotten had he roped just a few more delegates.
The ground game is about to get real. If he loses any of the next three, he's in deep schlong.
Another huge swing from what the pre-caucus polls said and reality. As much as 12% in some polls.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Votes from one precinct in Iowa were still missing Tuesday morning, and Democrats from that neighborhood were scrambling to find party officials so that they could report their tally: Bernie Sanders won by 2 delegates.
But the voters of Des Moines precinct No. 42 couldn’t find anyone at Iowa Democratic Party to take their phone calls. The party’s caucus hotline was no longer working. The party headquarters was locked.
“It’s important considering how close the race is. We need to be sure everyone has our accurate count,” said Jill Joseph, a rank-and-file Democratic voter who backed Sanders in at No. 42 Monday night.
Sanders won seven delegates, Clinton won five, Joseph told The Des Moines Register.
It quickly raised questions about whether Sanders had won the popular vote in Iowa. Sanders backers called for Iowa Democratic Party officials to release the raw vote totals.
She lost because Bernie was not stomped into the ground. She needed a decisive win.
Bernie needed it more. Iowa is more sympathetic (demographically) to Sanders than the nation in general. He is going to have trouble in more diverse states, as his support among minorities is pretty much nonexistent.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Feb 2, 2016, 04:34 PM
Originally Posted by Chongo
If you support Bernie go to that side of the room, Billary, go to that side of the room.
Yes, that's how it works, assuming there's enough room in the room. The new voter registration sheet was swarmed with Bernie votes and most places had record attendance beyond what anyone expected.
It's interesting how often you justify bad actions by what the opposition does.
Bad behavior? Every four years we hear from pundits on the left telling the Republicans what kind of candidate to nominate. The have, and they've lost.
Watch and learn, but I know you won't.
There are no minorities in Iowa and a lot of sanctimonious idealistic college kids who think they know how the world works. That's why Sanders did well last night. Its almost like his supporters didn't learn anything Obama "hope and change" shtick.
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
Bad behavior? Every four years we hear from pundits on the left telling the Republicans what kind of candidate to nominate. The have, and they've lost.
Yeah, what does that have to do with me?
Still, I should hear you out fully. Why did Hillary need to 'stomp' Bernie in Iowa. How does this affect her chances?
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious
There are no minorities in Iowa and a lot of sanctimonious idealistic college kids who think they know how the world works. That's why Sanders did well last night. Its almost like his supporters didn't learn anything Obama "hope and change" shtick.
Well, he has said the key to change is consistent voter turnout. I doubt, however, the majority of the disaffected have understood and will carry through on that message.
Bad behavior? Every four years we hear from pundits on the left telling the Republicans what kind of candidate to nominate. The have, and they've lost.
You're writing as if this were some strange thing and applies to both sides equally: if a Republican had to choose amongst Democratic candidates, they'd also take the candidate that is closest to their positions (i. e. most likely a centrist, unless they are a Trump supporter). And because in the primary voters tend to be more towards the outside wings rather than the center, these are at opposing ends. (Republican candidates run towards the right and Democrats run more towards the left; Once the primaries are over, the selected candidates moves to the center.) So it's common sense, not “left pundits losing.”
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
There is always the argument from the GOP right wing that picking someone from their wing will increase enthusiasm enough to offset the loss of centrist voters - basically, higher voter turnout among a minority will translate into a majority (or at least plurality) of voters. I don't think I've seen an example of that theory ever panning out, but I don't expect that that will stop the Bernie crowd from pushing the same idea this year.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Feb 3, 2016, 11:18 AM
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious
There are no minorities in Iowa and a lot of sanctimonious idealistic college kids who think they know how the world works. That's why Sanders did well last night. Its almost like his supporters didn't learn anything Obama "hope and change" shtick.
Who are minorities supporting this election cycle? Isn't Bernie their best shot, considering his civil rights history and immigration policy?
Many ignorantly believe that he's racist or less sympathetic than Hitlery. It's mind-boggling.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This. His support among blacks is pretty much indistinguishable from zero.
Why this is? Well, some is that he has focused laser-tight on Iowa and NH, states that aren't particularly diverse to begin with, hoping to come out of the gate with two wins - he simply may not be very well known among minorities. Only speculating here, I don't know why.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
This. His support among blacks is pretty much indistinguishable from zero.
Why this is? Well, some is that he has focused laser-tight on Iowa and NH, states that aren't particularly diverse to begin with, hoping to come out of the gate with two wins - he simply may not be very well known among minorities. Only speculating here, I don't know why.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Bernie Sanders is a senator from one of the whitest states in the country. And as you've noted his campaign has been focused thus fare on a couple of states that are very similar demographically to his home state. So he simply wasn't well known outside of his core constituency prior to his presidential run. Additionally, Bill Clinton is immensely popular in the African-American community. Primarily resulting from the significant economic gains African-Americans made during the Clinton Administration and his rather unique ability as a white politician to build a genuine rapport with the community. Hillary Clinton is most definitely benefitting politically because of this. That being said, I've seen growing support within African-American political circles for Bernie Sanders. As I've followed the debates within the the community I rarely come across anyone who doesn't support Bernie Sanders over policy. The divide is boiling down to those who support Bernie Sanders because he's marginally more aligned with African-American interests on policy vs those who support Hillary Clinton because her policy positions are close enough (especially with a GOP controlled Congress that will undoubtedly render Sanders' proposals DOA anyway) and she's perceived to be considerably more electable.
There is always the argument from the GOP right wing that picking someone from their wing will increase enthusiasm enough to offset the loss of centrist voters - basically, higher voter turnout among a minority will translate into a majority (or at least plurality) of voters.
I wrote that candidates run more towards the left or right fringes (and then steer back towards the center after winning the primaries) — which is not the same as saying that in the end candidates from these fringes will be elected.
Originally Posted by P
I don't think I've seen an example of that theory ever panning out, but I don't expect that that will stop the Bernie crowd from pushing the same idea this year.
Barack Obama, I think, is a good example: he was able to get people to vote who usually would not. He ran on Change, but when elected to office continued a lot of policies from the George W. Bush presidency (in some cases making things worse).
There are also examples when you think of, say, the Republican party when it comes to new voters: a lot of young people who vote for Republicans are (statistically) ok with things like homosexuality, something that used to be a demarcation line between Democrats and Republicans but no longer is.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
What Obama excelled in was taking advantage of thirty days of pre Election Day voting. His machine was able to bus people in from who knows where to vote. The election was over before the polls opened on Election Day.
Doesn't work that way. For one thing, statistics say so - nominees from the outer wings of a party don't win, statistically. The reason is that general elections are won by winning battleground states, and you do that by convincing independents to vote for your party. The closer you are to the center, the more likely independents are to join your side. The additional enthusiasm shows up in states you would have won anyway.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Doesn't work that way. For one thing, statistics say so - nominees from the outer wings of a party don't win, statistically. The reason is that general elections are won by winning battleground states, and you do that by convincing independents to vote for your party. The closer you are to the center, the more likely independents are to join your side. The additional enthusiasm shows up in states you would have won anyway.
This is true, but only if the other candidate is perceived to be a moderate. Right now, the two front-runners for the Republicans are both outliers as well, so I think this particular race is an exception. Honestly, I think the chances of a Democrat in the White House are very, very high simply because the Republican field and electorate is so divided.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Trump is an unknown, all bets are off there. Cruz I think would lose even to Sanders, but that is far from certain. The issue for the Dems is that Rubio is gaining steam - Paul is out, Santorum just dropped out and endorsed him, and at least Christie is only waiting for NH now. As I said previously, I think Rubio would be a tough nut to crack even for Clinton.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
I've been thinking about this claim, which is fairly common across the board. My dad feels this way...
Isn't it fallacious?
If he can beat Clinton, he can beat a Republican.
If he can't beat Clinton, one has lost nothing by supporting him because he didn't end up as the nominee.
Hillary Clinton is considerably more moderate than Bernie Sanders and will appeal more to the center of a general electorate. Not to mention how the center of the electorate tends to be less politically active. They typically aren't political junkies like the people who hang out around here. The GOP will just carpet bomb Sanders with attack ads on the whole "socialist" thing and it will stick because that's a dirty word in American culture. You'd be surprised how many Americans have no clue that our European allies practice "democratic socialism" all day everyday. Instead they will hear that word and immediately think Russia or China or Cuba because that's what they've been conditioned to think.
I've been thinking about this claim, which is fairly common across the board. My dad feels this way...
Isn't it fallacious?
If he can beat Clinton, he can beat a Republican.
If he can't beat Clinton, one has lost nothing by supporting him because he didn't end up as the nominee.
If things worked that way I feel like we'd be better at predicting election results. Independents, undecideds, moderates, and single-issue voters are the ones that throw a monkey wrench in things. Oh yeah, labels too.
We realize the EU is tanking too, so Bragging about being a Democratic Socialist is also pretty stupid.
What is it with Americans of a certain stripe and the need to brand Europe as failing...? The EU as such is doing OK. Certain nations, mainly Greece, are in trouble, but seemingly crawling in the right direction - and lower oil prices will help, so thanks for that.
In general, I think that Sanders' "Democratic Socialist" is clever branding. Just because Socialist is such a dirty word, it marks a break with the past - something that is very popular right now. The GOP would call him a socialist anyway - they tried to brand Obama as one, after all, and he is far closer to the center - so the downside is pretty minimal.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
The issue for the Dems is that Rubio is gaining steam - Paul is out, Santorum just dropped out and endorsed him, and at least Christie is only waiting for NH now. As I said previously, I think Rubio would be a tough nut to crack even for Clinton.
Rubio is being positioned as the moderate alternative to Trump and Cruze, in the hope that he can aggregate the votes that were split amongst many more mainstream candidates. Rubio's age will be a major selling point, Sanders is 74, but also Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not much younger (68 and 69, respectively). I have my doubts that Rubio would beat either Clinton or Sanders, because the Republican voters are much more split — a sizable share does not want to elect an “establishment candidate”. I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that quite a few people would consider voting for Trump or Sanders, because they are the candidates who they think can shake up the system. (I'd be interested in quantifying this, so if anyone has any data on that …) If Trump does not get the nomination and he decides to pull a Ross Perot, I'm quite certain the Democrats will win the presidency.
It's quite staggering how old many of the front runners are, and that this hasn't come up as a negative. When McCain was running, people were concerned whether “he'd make a full term” — and now, nothing.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
If Trump goes third party, the Dems can start planning the Inauguration (same for the GOP if Sanders does so, of course). And maybe some disappointed Republicans will vote for Sanders over Rubio, but not enough to make a difference in the Electoral College. I played it out somewhere around here a while back, but essentially, Rubio would bring FL, CO, NV, NM to the red column. Bernie would probably lose VA with that anti-establishment attitude (Obama won that mainly on DC suburbs). I don't see Bernie flipping any of the states Romney won. That puts the GOP at 268 before any of the classic battlegrounds. Is Bernie going to be a better bet than Clinton in states like OH? Because that is an absolute must win in this scenario.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Feb 4, 2016, 01:34 PM
Originally Posted by OAW
The GOP will just carpet bomb Sanders with attack ads on the whole "socialist" thing and it will stick because that's a dirty word in American culture.
You'd be surprised how many Americans have no clue that our European allies practice "democratic socialism" all day everyday.
Or those that despise European culture in general and any attempts to replicate it here.
It's quite staggering how old many of the front runners are, and that this hasn't come up as a negative. When McCain was running, people were concerned whether “he'd make a full term” — and now, nothing.
Well now they all have Obamacare so everyone knows they'll live longer.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
It's quite staggering how old many of the front runners are, and that this hasn't come up as a negative. When McCain was running, people were concerned whether “he'd make a full term” — and now, nothing.
Yes, I've been curious whether this would come up, but I assume they're waiting until the presidential election. Still, I think playing it against Hillary would be a gross misstep.
This won't happen. I say this having been 100% wrong about Trump so far.
Originally Posted by Laminar
Or those that despise European culture in general and any attempts to replicate it here.
I don't know why I realized this lately, but I think it's a symptom of cultural and global isolation. Europe has how many countries in the same amount of space as the continental US? Our idea of diversity is visiting a big city or going south. If we leave out country, we have more liberal US to the north and a country struggling against organized crime to the south. Europe is an expensive 8 hour flight. Meanwhile, in Europe a cheap short train ride will get you to a different culture.
I played it out somewhere around here a while back, but essentially, Rubio would bring FL, CO, NV, NM to the red column. Bernie would probably lose VA with that anti-establishment attitude (Obama won that mainly on DC suburbs). I don't see Bernie flipping any of the states Romney won. That puts the GOP at 268 before any of the classic battlegrounds.
Sanders like Obama seems very capable at mobilizing people who normally would not vote.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Yes, I've been curious whether this would come up, but I assume they're waiting until the presidential election.
I tend to agree. And if it's Clinton or Sanders vs. Trump in a hypothetical race, it's not as if either side can use age to their advantage. If it is Rubio or Cruze vs. Clinton or Sanders, I expect that they will.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
This won't happen. I say this having been 100% wrong about Trump so far.
I tend to agree, but I wouldn't wager on it. I think because Trump likes to win, he wouldn't want to be the third candidate who loses not only his own presidential bid, but also drag the Republicans down with him. On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past him to run either.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Well now they all have Obamacare so everyone knows they'll live longer.
Legislators are exempt, they get real insurance.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top