Presidential Election 2016

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 3007
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Loring Park, Minneapolis

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Nick » February 21st, 2016, 10:42 am


gpete
Union Depot
Posts: 335
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 9:33 am
Location: Seward, Mpls

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby gpete » February 21st, 2016, 10:55 am

Thank God for Vic Berger's videos and vines. Best part of the election so far.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 21st, 2016, 8:15 pm

VAStationDude wrote:
Tiller wrote:
Clinton will be the nominee. After three contests favorable to Sanders she and Sanders have each won 51 delegates. South Carolina and a bunch of large Super Tuesday states favor her heavily. There is absolutely no path for Bernie to overcome her super delegate lead.
No idea what you're quoting, but good luck in the general election if superdelegates push Hillary over the top. There are many Primaries beyond Super Tuesday, after which Hillary's path gets more difficult.

Image

VAStationDude
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 782
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:30 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby VAStationDude » February 21st, 2016, 8:38 pm

Read the chart. Sanders has yet to match any of the right hand column targets. debating either Hillary or Bernie will be a epic disaster for Trump. Barring some sort of crisis either Democrat is almost assured victory against a revolting clown that's loved by a relatively small group of idiots.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 21st, 2016, 10:07 pm

There have only been 3 contests thus far, and Bernie was only 2 points down from that graph's target in Nevada. He's also getting awfully close to Hillary in national polls right now, despite the party deciding on Hillary.

As for Trump, we'll have to wait until the general election to see how that would play out. He's left of Hillary in some areas, and would absolutely hit her from both sides. I'm not sure how the dynamic between him and Bernie would work out. Probably better than if it was Bush vs. Clinton.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7942
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby mattaudio » February 22nd, 2016, 9:42 am

Haven't there been multiple national polls showing Bernie would beat Trump easier than Clinton would? It doesn't necessarily make sense to me, but the data is there.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5832
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby MNdible » February 22nd, 2016, 9:55 am

For most people (especially the vast majority of voters who are just barely starting to pay attention), he's a blank slate that's gotten a lot of buzzy media and essentially no mud thrown at him. Were he actually to receive the nomination, he'd get dirty quickly.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1763
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 22nd, 2016, 10:31 am

Tiller wrote:http://usuncut.com/politics/snopes-rumo ... ers-false/

There just isn't anything to add anymore. Posting this in case someone here missed the fact-check.
That's a really weird "fact check." Just watch the video. Huerta was shouted down as translator by Bernie people, yelling "no," "she's with Hillary" and "get off the stage" (all this rather than offer an alternate/Bernie translator so that Spanish-speakers could participate), and rather than deal with that Snopes just sticks to whether anyone chanted a particular phrase.

And decides they didn't because it's not on the video and a bunch of Bernie supporters said that particular phrase was not chanted.

This incident looks terrible for the Bernie supporter in the room, regardless of whether "English only" was chanted.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1763
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 22nd, 2016, 10:34 am

mattaudio wrote:Haven't there been multiple national polls showing Bernie would beat Trump easier than Clinton would? It doesn't necessarily make sense to me, but the data is there.
The people who will decide the general election are not yet paying attention.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2316
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » February 22nd, 2016, 11:17 am

mattaudio wrote:Haven't there been multiple national polls showing Bernie would beat Trump easier than Clinton would? It doesn't necessarily make sense to me, but the data is there.
There are probably more Sanders supporters who say (right now) that they won't vote for Clinton than vice versa. There's a similar effect on the Republican side with everyone except Rubio, the universal second choice.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 833
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby LakeCharles » February 22nd, 2016, 2:18 pm

amiller92 wrote:
Tiller wrote:http://usuncut.com/politics/snopes-rumo ... ers-false/

There just isn't anything to add anymore. Posting this in case someone here missed the fact-check.
That's a really weird "fact check." Just watch the video. Huerta was shouted down as translator by Bernie people, yelling "no," "she's with Hillary" and "get off the stage" (all this rather than offer an alternate/Bernie translator so that Spanish-speakers could participate), and rather than deal with that Snopes just sticks to whether anyone chanted a particular phrase.

And decides they didn't because it's not on the video and a bunch of Bernie supporters said that particular phrase was not chanted.

This incident looks terrible for the Bernie supporter in the room, regardless of whether "English only" was chanted.
An 85-year old woman (and civil-rights lion) trying to translate the caucus got shouted off the stage by Sanders supporters, resulting in an English-only caucus. I can see why she might be a little peeved about that, even though I also get why Sanders supporters wanted a neutral party.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 22nd, 2016, 5:51 pm

I think it's pretty clear what one is supposed to picture when told a bunch of Bernie supporters were chanting "English Only!": Xenophobic Trump supporters.

Edit: Apparently a Bernie-friendly translator was sent up, and further, the caucus rules do state that translators must be neutral.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 22nd, 2016, 7:27 pm

On the topic of head-to-head polls, I've recently seen this article cited on the topic:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/karp ... -election/
In a comprehensive analysis of elections between 1952 and 2008, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wleizen found that matchup polls as early as April have generally produced results close to the outcome in November.

Even much earlier “trial heats” seem to be far from meaningless. As partisan polarization has increased over the last three decades, there’s some evidence that early polling has become more predictive than ever. In all five elections since 1996, February matchup polls yielded average results within two points of the final outcome.
I'm not fully sold on this, because I'd like to see the standard deviation in addition to the <2% average (though since the sample size is small, I'd rather just see the individual polling averages for each of the five elections in feburary/march), but it would make sense. Political polarization is also why polling agencies haven't been completely decimated by dismal response rates, compared to past elections when many states could swing either way. Fivethirtyeight's analysis last fall used polls that are 3-4 months out-of-date, both for this election and historically, and included elections dating back to 1952 to expand the sample size (aka not part of our current polarized period).

I also find the portion on "moderates" to be elucidating
But as political scientists Shawn Treier and D. Sunshine Hillygus have argued, two-dimensional surveys of voter ideology do not provide a useful guide to the American electorate. To the great disappointment of the Post editorial board, many self-identified “moderates” are not sober Beltway centrists but in fact “cross-pressured” by a mix of strong liberal and conservative beliefs.

The unstable and multidimensional identity of the “moderate” voter helps explain why Sanders’s own polling numbers have regularly confounded the prejudices of pundits. In New Hampshire, for instance, where experts repeatedly stressed his strength with “liberals,” Sanders actually did even better with “moderate/conservative” voters.
Someone being "moderate" or "independent" doesn't automatically mean they're centrists. While speculative, I doubt the ideological pool of centrists that Clinton can get, but Bernie can't, is as large as some think. Some of the Bernie's advantage in head-to-head polls probably comes from blue collar whites Bernie has won over, civil libertarians and foreign policy doves, those who are moderate or pro-gun (gun control still isn't a winning issue for democrats), those concerned with campaign finance reform, etc.

User avatar
Sacrelicio
Union Depot
Posts: 367
Joined: November 11th, 2015, 6:38 pm
Location: Field

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Sacrelicio » February 22nd, 2016, 11:58 pm

I've been mostly a Clinton supporter but I've liked Bernie all along, even holding out a chance that I'd vote for him in the caucus. But this sealed it for me:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Clinton has helped raise 26 million dollars for the DNC and other Democrats on the ballot this year. Bernie hasn't raised a single cent. Not only does it make him look like an opportunist, using the Democratic party for his own purposes, but it also shows how little he understands this whole process. An amateur who doesn't understand how elections work or doesn't care.

User avatar
Nathan
IDS Center
Posts: 4003
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Nathan » February 23rd, 2016, 12:27 am

Ok, but really... The DNC hasn't really helped him either... He's been Independent. The DNC has done A LOT for Hillary so far in her past two runs... you might think she owes it to them. They certainly haven't been helping Bernie out for years. And to imply that Sanders wouldn't become a fundraiser for the party once he has become president or the presidential candidate is silly.

User avatar
Tiller
Foshay Tower
Posts: 853
Joined: January 17th, 2015, 11:58 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Tiller » February 23rd, 2016, 2:36 am

Looks like they're trying to figure out how Bernie makes money rain from the sky, to use for themselves.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/s ... ats-219430
They haven’t endorsed him, and many think he doesn’t stand a chance to win. They’re overwhelmingly supporting Hillary Clinton. Yet Democrats are in awe of their schlumpy, old colleague Bernie Sanders.
Hill Democrats are scrambling to figure out how they can capture some of Sanders’ magic — and his ability to conjure up campaign cash, seemingly out of thin air, from an apparently endless stream of supporters.


Protip: endorsing and supporting Bernie is the easier way, as opposed to working against him and then pandering afterwards, particularly if Hillary wins. If they're lucky, he'll win in spite of them, and they'll get help anyways.

Edit: and the only reason for that haul are the donation limits. If an individual could give more than $5400 to a candidate (half for the Primaries, half for the general), it wouldn't be nearly that much.

User avatar
Sacrelicio
Union Depot
Posts: 367
Joined: November 11th, 2015, 6:38 pm
Location: Field

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Sacrelicio » February 23rd, 2016, 9:25 am

Nathan wrote:Ok, but really... The DNC hasn't really helped him either... He's been Independent. The DNC has done A LOT for Hillary so far in her past two runs... you might think she owes it to them. They certainly haven't been helping Bernie out for years. And to imply that Sanders wouldn't become a fundraiser for the party once he has become president or the presidential candidate is silly.
Exactly, he's latching onto the Democratic Party when it's convenient for him. And she helps her party out because that's how the whole working-together-as-a-party thing goes. He would need a ton of help from them in the generals and as president. He can try to raise money later, if there is a "later."

And if it's such a grassroots movement, maybe throw some seeds out for the rest of the team?

User avatar
Nathan
IDS Center
Posts: 4003
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:42 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby Nathan » February 23rd, 2016, 9:42 am

Like I said, to think he won't throw out the seeds once he has accomplished that is ridiculously silly. He's also activating an electorate that Hillary has proven she can't get out to vote for Democrats, she's proving this twice. She can't get young voters out. Period. He's sowing seeds money can't.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1763
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby amiller92 » February 23rd, 2016, 9:43 am

Sacrelicio wrote:Bernie hasn't raised a single cent. Not only does it make him look like an opportunist, using the Democratic party for his own purposes, but it also shows how little he understands this whole process. An amateur who doesn't understand how elections work or doesn't care.
He understand it. He just opts out.

But this is why no one should shed any tears if it's close and the super delegates win it for Hillary. They are there to protect the party, and choosing the candidate that helps the party over the one who just signed up to run for president is a good example of when they should.

Although I don't think it's going to come to that.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2316
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Presidential Election 2016

Postby EOst » February 23rd, 2016, 9:48 am

Nathan wrote:Ok, but really... The DNC hasn't really helped him either... He's been Independent. The DNC has done A LOT for Hillary so far in her past two runs... you might think she owes it to them. They certainly haven't been helping Bernie out for years. And to imply that Sanders wouldn't become a fundraiser for the party once he has become president or the presidential candidate is silly.
So what? If Bernie Sanders is ever elected president, his entire agenda will be dependent on his party's success in the Congressional elections. If he's serious about that, he should be doing it now, not in three months when the nomination is set.


Return to “Anything Goes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests