|
stephenfry posted:i'll assume other people have whined about that abysmal turnout already What was the final count? Did it break 400k?
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
stephenfry posted:i'll assume other people have whined about that abysmal turnout already Comparing turnout of one of the most competitive primaries in recent history to one of the least competitive is intellectually dishonest. If you are worried about turn out look at how much minorities are mobilizing against Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Clinton and Sanders each won a state outright and pretty much tied the other one. How is it one of the least competitive primaries in recent history? Last I checked they are fairly close in national polling as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Clinton and Sanders each won a state outright and pretty much tied the other one. How is it one of the least competitive primaries in recent history? because other than those first two states this is what the rest of the election slate looks like according to RCP averages: VA - Clinton +19.5 MA - Sanders +0.5 FL - Clinton +29.0 GA - Clinton +36.8 TX - Clinton +26.3 MI - Clinton +19.0 MN - Clinton +26.0 CO - Clinton +28.0 TN - Clinton +23.0 AL - Clinton +28.0 AR - Clinton +28.5 OK - Clinton +9.0 VT - Sanders +75.0 OH - Clinton +15 WI - Clinton +2.0 PA - Clinton +19.0 NJ - Clinton +31.0 MD - Clinton +30.0 So that's 1 big win for Sanders (VT), 2 tossup (MA, WI), 1 win for Clinton (OK), and then 14 double digit wins for Clinton. Obama/Hillary in 08 had them either very close in states or trading states. The best Bernie can do is maybe win MA and WI and that simply isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Ok, but that assumes the average voter rolls out of bed each morning to check the RCP index.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
I just want to say I loving hate sanders and his fanclub. And I am gleeful at their defeat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Ok, but that assumes the average voter rolls out of bed each morning to check the RCP index. i don't understand what you're saying here  that's the current state of the race by the best metric we have other than the actual elections. barring some crazy event, clinton is about to win a whole lot of states and win big. she knows it, bernie knows it, and the media know it and that's why this election isn't super competitive. in fact this is pretty much how primaries usually go. that is, there's some jostling but by super tuesday the writing is on the wall. 2008 was very unique in that it didn't go that way and remained close up through may.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I don't think she's significantly better than she was in 2008. I dunno...I think she's improved substantially since then. Back in 2008, a lot of her campaign had sort of a chiding tone to it, ie: "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" Contrast that with the image she sets now, when she gets asked about people voting for Sanders over her: "I'm still fighting for them, and I hope they'll see that." That's a pretty sizable shift, IMO, and it's a really smart one. And I say that as someone who's going to support Sanders until Hillary gets the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Literally nobody is celebrating his failure. But everyone is laughing at the people who bragged for weeks and months about how Bernie would finally capture the black vote. This isn't so much a laughter at Sanders as much as it is the insufferable fucks that drowned us all in poo poo. All the sane people are happy Bernie has moved Hillary to the left (and arguably the party to). OK. I was mostly grumpy and tired.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:seriously, guys, you need those votes in the general. can the democratic party stop making unforced errors for, like, 10 minutes. sanders has fired up a huge youth constituency that could deliver us a democratic wave on the level of 1964. don't gently caress this up by gloating enough that they all stay home. Except he hasn't. Youth participation isn't significantly up anywhere. If he--or anyone--manages to actually really fire up the youth population to 65+ levels of voting, they will win easily. Nobody has, partially because the youth vote constantly cripples itself because a lot of the most politically aware and engaged are also never going to vote or if they do for a candidate that is unacceptable to the majority of the country. When I was down at OWS I saw the same thing: half the people there wanted to take the energy and register people to vote, like Imani Gandy, but the other half were viciously, angrily against participation in the political system or voting for only extremist, non-serious candidates like Stein on the grounds that it is corrupt and the Democrats are just like the GOP and accelerationism and all the other reasons (some of which get posted in this thread). And they spent most of their energy fighting with the ones who did want people to participate. This is a lot of the group that Sanders has fired up, but they are a small proportion of youth overall, just super loud and vocal--the youth who don't give a poo poo you don't hear from at all--and you can only get them by making appeals that won't float with the majority of the rest of the electorate. I'm not even sure if this radicalness of youth is bad, I think it probably is highly functional in some ways. Narcissus1916 posted:LOL at that phone banker story. As someone who has done a ton of phone banking, there is nothing like hearing another phone banker earnestly trying to explain that, in addition to the various other listed reasons for voting for the candidate, dogs love him. Jacobin posted:Im not sure if you have ever experienced being truly poor. What the hell? No, when I was truly poor I was starving and I used money I had to buy food, which you need to live. Stupid poor poo poo: It is acceptable to bum a cigarette, but you can't bum a bite off a dude's hot dog. So when you're poor it's more socially acceptable to get poison than food. Obdicut has issued a correction as of 13:49 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Clinton won 39 soft pledged delegates last night, to Bernie's 14. Additionally, four of SC's soft unpledged delegates support her, while two remain uncommitted. DELEGATE COUNT
186 delegates awarded so far of the 2,651 district, 909 at large, 491 pledged PLEOs, 713 unpledged PLEOs, or 4,764 total available delegates to the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Joe, thanks for all the work you do in these threads. You're either a saint or completely mad for putting up with us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Joe, thanks for all the work you do in these threads. You're either a saint or completely mad for putting up with us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Can any Gen Xers recall enough about the Bradley campaign in the 2000 primary versus Gore to say whether it's a decent point of comparison to Sanders v Clinton? I remember that Bradley ran to the left of Gore and that he didn't do nearly as well as Sanders is now, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Can any Gen Xers recall enough about the Bradley campaign in the 2000 primary versus Gore to say whether it's a decent point of comparison to Sanders v Clinton? I think the 2000 GOP primary is a more apt comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Joe, thanks for all the work you do in these threads. You're either a saint or completely mad for putting up with us. thirded
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I think the 2000 GOP primary is a more apt comparison. Yeah. Bradley never had any momentum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
axeil posted:because other than those first two states this is what the rest of the election slate looks like according to RCP averages: MN has two polls on RCP, one from August last year and one from Jan 20th of this year. I'll be surprised if the caucuses here on Tuesday aren't neck and neck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
axeil posted:i don't understand what you're saying here He's saying he has no idea what a poll is
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
axeil posted:i don't understand what you're saying here he thinks people check the polls before voting I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Literally nobody is celebrating his failure. But everyone is laughing at the people who bragged for weeks and months about how Bernie would finally capture the black vote. This isn't so much a laughter at Sanders as much as it is the insufferable fucks that drowned us all in poo poo. All the sane people are happy Bernie has moved Hillary to the left (and arguably the party to). That seems to be one of the main if not the main emotions driving the Hillary supporters on here though, wanting Sanders fans to be angry and disappointed. There's about 100x more mentions of that than actual excitement over Hillary or her policies, not like I can blame them. I don't think spite is a healthy reason to support a candidate, sure the r/s4p people are fun to laugh at even though it's probably like 2/3 fakeposts but the funny should wear off after an hour or so when you realize we're trying to choose the next president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:MN has two polls on RCP, one from August last year and one from Jan 20th of this year. I'll be surprised if the caucuses here on Tuesday aren't neck and neck. yeah, the stateleness and sparseness of the data is a legitimate point and one way this all could be wrong. however, given that's the most current data we have it's unfortunately what we have to go with. if a bunch of polls came out today/tomorrow showing smaller margins across the board all this analysis would be bunk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:he thinks people check the polls before voting I guess? No, its misunderstanding of poll cause/effect
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
Well good for you - very rational - sounds like you had somethig to get your hopes up for in reasonable time - I find your usage of the term "stupid poor poo poo" weird though. Our original point was about giving something away or buying something and not begging - it is *exactly* because some people have almost nothing that its a big deal/moment to savour if you can fritter some of it away for a dream, happy moment, whatever/ yes, ultimately like most things stupid like lottery tickets or giving your last $3 to Bernie
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Hey all the people going hungry to put money in Bernie's doomed campaign: put that money in here to support Democrats in house races: http://dccc.org/
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:Well good for you - very rational - sounds like you had somethig to get your hopes up for in reasonable time - I find your usage of the term "stupid poor poo poo" weird though. No, I had nothing to get get my hopes up. I was living in a slum, with no job, an eviction notice, and I needed the money for food--actually, I needed that money and more for food. I'm not sure 'rational' is the best view of 'prioritizing food so you can live', animals manage it. I have no idea why 'stupid poor poo poo' is weird to you, it really clearly means: Stupid poo poo you go through when you're poor. quote:Our original point was about giving something away or buying something and not begging - it is *exactly* because some people have almost nothing that its a big deal/moment to savour if you can fritter some of it away for a dream, happy moment, whatever/ yes, ultimately like most things stupid like lottery tickets or giving your last $3 to Bernie It's one of the curses being poor that you can't afford those moments of frittering, that every dollar is already committed to something, that you can't help your friends or buy their coffee. I don't get how you were able to have only dollars to your name for weeks and still give away dollars--did you have some other source of food or something? And people who tempt poor people into buying a lottery ticket are exploitative assholes. Obdicut has issued a correction as of 17:48 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hey all the people going hungry to put money in Bernie's doomed campaign: put that money in here to support Democrats in house races: http://dccc.org/ This a thousand times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Can any Gen Xers recall enough about the Bradley campaign in the 2000 primary versus Gore to say whether it's a decent point of comparison to Sanders v Clinton? Nobody ever thought Bradley was a serious candidate. Gore was always going to be the guy which is too bad because an actual contested primary might have been good for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Well, Killer Mike may not be the best operative, but some people who know how to strategize work for the Sanders campaign. The endorsement by Tulsi Gabbard will fill some of the news media's time until Tuesday and give all his supporters a little boost after that blowout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I have no idea why 'stupid poor poo poo' is weird to you, it really clearly means: Stupid poo poo you go through when you're poor. It is because of your incredibly moralizing, preaching tone. "Stupid poor poo poo" could just as well sound like a pejorative, rather an experience. It wasn't clear. Anyways good for you. I am not trying to justify anything but wow some people really cant not get irate or really superior to the idea of some poor sad person "sitting at home, very poor, sad/desperate about the world, hey here is one $3 I should be spending on some vegetables towards this momentary dream the world could change". It makes sense, and its not rational, if you can empathise a little bit -but maybe this isn't the forum. The actual answer is not "stupid poor poo poo... why cant you completely prioritize every last dollar of your meager resources" but maybe question deep systemic inequality and lack of access to social capital but hey thats tough stuff.... here comes Trump we gotta get behind not-Trump  (in practical terms for one thing this might mean- Medicare for all like most other industrialized countries...)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Let me blunt: it's really stupid to waste your last $3 on a dead campaign when you can still donate to the various Senate and House campaigns aroudn the country, whether directly or through things like the democratic congressional committee
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:It is because of your incredibly moralizing, preaching tone. "Stupid poor poo poo" could just as well sound like a pejorative, rather an experience. It wasn't clear. Anyways good for you. I don't have a moralizing, preaching tone. Someone talking about how good it made them feel to donate money even when they were super poor--that's a preachy tone. quote:. "Stupid poor poo poo" could just as well sound like a pejorative, rather an experience. It wasn't clear. Anyways good for you. No, in context it couldn't have been a pejorative. quote:
I don't feel superior to it. I'm saying it doesn't happen, because when you're so poor that you can't pay for food you don't even have that money to waste. You have to actually know that you will be able to eat in some other way. If you actually, literally know it means no food, you won't spend it unless you're a lunatic. quote:The actual answer is not "stupid poor poo poo... why cant you completely prioritize every last dollar of your meager resources" but maybe question deep systemic inequality and lack of access to social capital but hey thats tough stuff.... here comes Trump we gotta get behind not-Trump (in practical terms for one thing this might mean- Medicare for all like most other industrialized countries...) Oh look now you're pretending I meant 'stupid poor poo poo' as a pejorative. My contention is really simple: poor people prioritize food because you need that to live. And they do prioritize every last dollar. Why are you telling me to question deep systemic inequality? What in my post excused systemic inequality? Why are you suddenly babbling about Trump, who I detest? Get a loving grip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
a bunch of teenagers just learned a very harsh lesson about the difference between public perception in the internet and in real life
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well, this was long expected, but I'll say to the people gleefully celebrating Bernie's failure, I don't get you, and probably never will. this is their reward for months of endless arguments in the dem thread. its a sad, spiteful prize but its something
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Aw. someone dumbed my profile and I forgot to save my old red text, which I loved. drat it. Edit: Thanks but I already changed it to a sweet picture of a nice dog. But now I've got that saved, which is nice, so thanks again. Obdicut has issued a correction as of 19:46 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Aw. someone dumbed my profile and I forgot to save my old red text, which I loved. drat it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:OK. I was mostly grumpy and tired. It's fine. Your a treasure to these forums and it's a bloody wonder you put up without the poo poo flinging. MaxxBot posted:That seems to be one of the main if not the main emotions driving the Hillary supporters on here though, wanting Sanders fans to be angry and disappointed. There's about 100x more mentions of that than actual excitement over Hillary or her policies, not like I can blame them. I don't think spite is a healthy reason to support a candidate, sure the r/s4p people are fun to laugh at even though it's probably like 2/3 fakeposts but the funny should wear off after an hour or so when you realize we're trying to choose the next president. Have you missed all the insane garbage being thrown around YCS lately? Everyone here likes Bernie but watching people meltdown has been a time honored goon tradition for ages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
"Eat the poor" - Obdicut
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hey all the people going hungry to put money in Bernie's doomed campaign: put that money in here to support Democrats in house races: http://dccc.org/ Does this apply to the Senate as well? That's the one I consider to be the more likely and important
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Does this apply to the Senate as well? That's the one I consider to be the more likely and important http://www.dscc.org
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 21:59
|
|
