|
Concerned Citizen posted:I am glad Martin O'Malley is still on the ballot, and will be voting for him tomorrow. lyndon larouche salutes you for your vote against the british monarchy
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
this is so loving stupid
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
wrap it up trump/clintailures
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
confirmation bias is either the best or the worst thing about statistics, depending on whether you're a normal person or a professional who actually has to use statistics for things instead of just talking poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
apparently there's some really old hotel in dixsville notch and i guess they figured out that this would be good publicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Balsams_Grand_Resort_Hotel good for them there's like a 0.1% chance i go there. when i was a kid we stayed some place in vermont in the summer and i thought it was nice, maybe i'll do it here. i don't ski or golf though so probably not
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:https://twitter.com/DixvilleVote/status/696924761805484035 see you at the balsams grand resort hotel. were gonna eat that cake and eat it too i hope they set up some kind of insane situation room with a ton of booze and market themselves as america's election day destination. i don't think they will
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
http://hartslocation.com/2016-presidential-primary/quote:Hart’s Location polls opened at midnight and closed at ….
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
people were like 'who are these guys' in the iowa thread and the answer was 'the people who bother to call the election clerks' phones and ask them what the votes are' i think microsoft stole their thunder in iowa but they're back on the map now!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
...and now we wait 19 hours for the next results
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
thethreeman posted:a legitimately good question i voted gilmore. virginia is for car tax HATERS it's 49/51 greenstein right now, this is quite the poll right ere
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
in florida elementary school every friday instead of the pledge they'd wheel a tv into the room and we'd sign along to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox4IRQVGsBU we'd start sitting down and then on the last 'stand UP' with the cymbal crash we'd all stand up i still know every word to the loving song not relevant but im just sayin
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
well this is silly using the site from the OP http://www.wmur.com/politics/2016-full-new-hampshire-presidential-primary-election-results/37649066 and copy-pasting the republcian table into excel im getting rubio as barely 800 votes over the you-get-no-delegates threshold. it'd be pretty funny if he fell below that
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
the last few refreshes of http://www.wmur.com/politics/2016-full-new-hampshire-presidential-primary-election-results/37649066 have had rubio slightly increasing his margin over the 10% cutoff (if that is the cutoff). i don't think he's going to fall below it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
going by thisJoementum posted:REPUBLICAN PROCESS jeb's only at like 2.56/23 of the total vote but i doubt he'll get rounded down rubio continues to be 800something voters above 10% of the electorate so he probably will not get cut off oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 05:06 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Silver lining for Rubio: he'll probably hit the 10% viability threshold and earn a couple delegates. a half hour or so ago i started copying and pasting into an excel spreadsheet that did the math on that and he's been slowly increasing his raw vote margin over 10% from the mid 800s to the low 900s. so he's pretty certain to get his two delegates nobody's close to getting rounded to a different number i dont think. jeb's at 2.57/23 of the vote, cruz 2.64. rubio's at 2.41. only 27% of the vote left to be counted
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
i assume carson stays in, and fiorina may actually drop out but it won't really matter
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
i don't think either democratic nominee can win the house unless the republican nominee is widely recognized as a disaster before the election and drives down republican turnout https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/146z3cDVx5WGCprbKGFSMeGfyTFfIlE8SbjrLQ0sfkBI/edit#gid=0 romney won 226 of the 435 congressional districts in 2012, and that's with a 4% margin of defeat nationwide more to the point, obama's percentage of the vote was larger than romney's best percentage, 80.2%, in 26 districts, while 57 districts had between a 50-55% romney vote compared to 32 with a 50-55% obama vote the republican skew of the house makes a drop in republican turnout more important than a rise in democratic turnout because any individual republican is more likely to be located in a close district than is any individual (potential) democrat one assumption here is that the new voters/non-voters are distributed identically to 2012 voters, which is untrue, strictly speaking, but given the segregated, self-sorted nature of america that seems like a reasonable approximation of reality. i'm also ignoring voters who switch their votes, and really it's a very simplistic analysis - anybody want to point out other reasons why i'm wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Montasque posted:I'm having a hard time following you but my guess is what you're saying is that the Republicans are having a very high turn out and because of this their voter base will be energized for the general compared to the dems? a couple people explained it narratively better than i did. my argument more mathematically i suppose would go like this if a million more democrats turn out for bernie than did for obama, we'll distribute them proportionally amongst the districts by obama vote. so if a district gave obama 1% of his total vote, they get 10,000 more democratic voters similarly, if a million republicans who voted for romney don't show up for trump, we subtract them proportionally amongst the districts by romney vote. a district that gave romney 1% of his total vote gets 10,000 subtracted from its republican voter total given this assumption , if you're trying to make the democrats win you would rather subtract republicans than add democrats. the republicans are more likely to come from battleground districts, and the democrats are more likely to be added to dark blue districts the assumption is factually untrue, but i think it's closer to reality than assuming, say, that a bernie voter is equally likely to pop up in the bronx or in the rural texas panhandle oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 06:25 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
one thing that might support my lil' assumption from the last few posts i made itt - a district with more non-voters is more likely to provide a new democratic voter than a district with fewer non-voters i don't have the data here right now and i'm done doing math tonight but im inclined to think that higher turnout% correlates with higher romney%. but gently caress it. buttfuck it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Gotcha thanks for explaining. thanks for getting me to think it through more thoroughly and find a better way of expressing it its like rubber duck debugging except your not a rubber duck youre a goodposter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Gyges posted:On the plus side, the realignment post ratfucking by the "super majority" does mean that if the Democrats do win back similar majorities again, the fringe Senators that have to be pandered to won't be nearly as far down the worthless sack of poo poo axis as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. i think the amount of conservative democrats - not 'conservative for a democrat', but 'as conservative as a conservative republican, but a democrat' - that were still around in 2008 were a big part of why that democratic majority disappointed non-conservatives, but i don't think it'd necessarily be a different story if democrats get 55%+ of the national congressional vote in 2016 and pull off a majority while democrats aren't likely to win massively conservative rural southern districts any more, the driftwood washed in by these wave elections tend to be more like their districts than they are like their national party. most candidates come out of local politics and have demonstrated an ability to win local districts. if a district that liked obama votes for their democratic candidate in a bernie wave, that representative is not going to be a bernie clone - although technically, most filing deadlines are still open - that representative is going to be the kind of democrat that wins elections in that district some of those representatives will actually be closer to the left wing of the democratic party than their voters and feel/vote the bern. some of those representatives (most?) will try to stave off the midterm backlash by voting against bernie all the time and telling their district they're fighting the liberals from the inside. but i think a lot of them will actually be genuine members of the centrist wing of the democratic party and will vote against 'socialism' because they believe in the poo poo nobody on this web site respects
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Generally people are of the same general political views as those who live around them. Various factors such as education, upbringing, socioeconomics, and lowish barriers to moving help this along. In a 55-45 district, non voters are generally as likely as voters to be for the majority party. There are of course exceptions where districts are composed of more heterogeneous mixtures of voters. The way to counteract that would be to run a superior ground game that gets out all your potential votes while the opposition runs a noticeably less effective ground game. yeah this is another example of someone coming up with a better narrative explanation of my argument than i could my thinking in general is that while personally, if i was creating the entire electorate and election cycle in my head, bernie sanders would lose the general election to a more socialist candidate, i worry that the real electorate is creepy and banally evil and would actually, literally choose trump over sanders while being willing to take clinton over trump. in other words, i'm worried about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. i can never figure out which side of my thinking is more fevered and illogical than the other
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
i shouldve put scare quotes around 'perfect' and 'good'
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
read nixonland, basically
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
i hope cruz eventally airs ads about trump wanting to gently caress his daughter i don't think that's an unreasonable supposition. i could easily see trump getting to a dominant position and cruz, who obviously plays by the christian moralistic playbook, feeling the need to play the ultimate - heh,heheheheheheheheheheheheheheehheehehehehehehehehehehehehe - trump card it's not like cruz doesn't play dirty
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 06:54
|
|