Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: I literally said in my first post it was more important for Sanders to be able to declare victory than for Clinton. That obviously didn't happen, Sanders didn't get that important victory. That's my "positive spin." That was ignored in favor of going after my other point- that in the scheme of things, that we're even at this point is surprising and important, as any number of commentators have noted today. The second point carried a whiff of negativity toward St. Hillary (who pulled off a truly unexpected and miraculous win last night), so it had to be challenged, of course. Dude, you challenged me. I didn't even respond to you originally. You then jumped all over me because I was surprised Clinton was doing as well. What the hell is this revisionism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: Dude, you challenged me. I didn't even respond to you originally. You then jumped all over me because I was surprised Clinton was doing as well. What the hell is this revisionism? You just now accused me of having to spin this in favor of Sanders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Yes, I did say you spun it for Sanders. Which you did. He lost, after all. And not only did you have to spin it for Sanders, you had to paint me as some delusional blowhard as well for your own sake. And while you said it was important that Sanders win, you also said that this was this huge deal and mocked Shryke and I for being surprised Clinton actually won Iowa. At this point the only thing I know is that you're a diehard Sanders supporter, and apparently are affronted by the notion that what you say is not a perfect representation of the facts. The notion that I was going after you when you called me a 'real piece of work' when I hadn't even responded to you is pretty revisionistic, yes. But let's get back to the actual meat, OAR: how does Sanders do well in South Carolina or on Super Tuesday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 28 minutes ago, Kalbear said: . Clinton declared a win. Sanders declared that it was like winning. . Not sure that this qualifies as spin for either side, as they are both technically true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Not sure that this qualifies as spin for either side, as they are both technically true. Well, when you don't win and you declare that this was awesome, chances are good it's spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: Yes, I did say you spun it for Sanders. Which you did. He lost, after all. And not only did you have to spin it for Sanders, you had to paint me as some delusional blowhard as well for your own sake. And while you said it was important that Sanders win, you also said that this was this huge deal and mocked Shryke and I for being surprised Clinton actually won Iowa. At this point the only thing I know is that you're a diehard Sanders supporter, and apparently are affronted by the notion that what you say is not a perfect representation of the facts. The notion that I was going after you when you called me a 'real piece of work' when I hadn't even responded to you is pretty revisionistic, yes. But let's get back to the actual meat, OAR: how does Sanders do well in South Carolina or on Super Tuesday? Good, so we agree that I understand your accusation correctly. And since my comment on the result in the broad, pre-race context is the only positive point I made about Sanders' result yesterday, I am perfectly correct in saying you are challenging it by accusing me of spin. The idea that Clinton was surprisingly successful remains plainly absurd. Now, to future contests. I agree with the conventional wisdom that Sanders has no path to the nomination unless he drastically and quickly turns around his numbers with minority voters. That seems unlikely at this point, particularly with his failure to secure a win in Iowa and momentum with it. There's my relentless pro-Sanders spin again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 27 minutes ago, OwloftheRainwood said: No, it wasn't true in the last two elections. Young people and minorities - who heavily skew Democratic - won it for Obama in 2008 and 2012. This was not "undecideds", this was turning out the base. When young people and minorities didn't show up in 2010 and 2014, Dems in Congress got smoked. Most "independents" stay home or really lean one or the other. Don't take my word for it - take a gander at political science literature in journals and books for the last 20 years. I think you're right that more, especially Republicans are becoming independents and there is a greater share of independents than previous election cycles, but honestly independent voters do not make as much a difference as the media tells you (they benefit from every election looking close and down to moderates)...Straw men are easy to beat. I never said Florida or Ohio were necessary for either Obama victory, I said generally it comes down to base turnout in swing states, not that every election depends on Ohio and Florida. Where you were on election night has little bearing on the validity of the actual argument being made. You can keep repeating that independents will decide the election, but it is empirically not the case. You're right, where I was when Obama won isn't empirical evidence--it's just awesome. But speaking of evidence, most of the articles I read said have said that there was a combination of independent voters, young voters, and minorities that helped Obama win. I believe Mitt Romney won more independent votes in certain states last time around, but that doesn't mean you can discount the Independent vote--it's very important Obama still needed to win a handy amount of these to win the necessary swing states. See this chart for a good reference of the breakdown: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/13/infographic-obama-lost-the-independent-vote-in-almost-every-swing-state Note that in 2008, independent votes were a critical part of his absolute domination, and in 2012, they were still necessary to win the states he needed. He didn't need to win the majority of them, but enough so that his other coalition factors could come out on top. The reason they're paid attention to, is because they're the only folks who's mind can change. I don't think they even do, most of the time. But even if it happens some of the time, it's critical. Most declared folks vote along party lines almost all the time. Most youths and minorities vote liberal. And Democrats are terrible at voting during off calendar elections. Not just youth votes, but across the line; they are just terrible at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, Kalbear said: But let's get back to the actual meat, OAR: how does Sanders do well in South Carolina or on Super Tuesday? He can't anymore. That's why Clinton had to win last night. She would have been the nominee either way, but a win last night was the difference between her winning on Super Tuesday or a longer, drawn out nomination process. And really, a Clinton win last night is what was best for the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 7 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Well, when you don't win and you declare that this was awesome, chances are good it's spin. It wasn't like she had a resounding victory. There is a 2 delegate difference, and the final vote was 49.9% to 49.6%. Both sides' spin is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The positive things you said: Quote Either way, this is a stunning result in the scheme of things. Clinton was supposed to be near untouchable, and if anyone was going to seriously challenge her it was supposed to be a comparatively big name like Biden, not a little known Senator from Vermont. Quote You're a piece of work. There have been a handful of polls showing Sanders leading and a ton showing Clinton leading.Fivethirtyeight had Clinton as the overwhelming favorite. Everyone knows you're bullshitting, give it up. Quote Another amazingly prescient Clinton supporter! Bizarre that basically no one voiced the expectation that Sanders would mount a serious challenge to Clinton before a month ago, but they all secretly knew it. This is pretty clearly spin. I have no idea why you'd want to ignore the conversation of the last month or the forecasting of the last month to make yourself believe that it's 'stunning' that Sanders would do so well, I have even more confusion why you'd call it stunning in one post and then post polls showing why I shouldn't be stunned. Why is it okay that you're stunned by the result but I can't be surprised by the result? It seems like you want to make this a major result for Sanders (like the polls predicted, apparently) but then be critical when someone...was surprised that the polls weren't exactly right. Seems very odd. Quote The idea that Clinton was surprisingly successful remains plainly absurd. And yet I have that idea. I was expecting that Sanders being able to mobilize a lot of people would affect the caucus to a greater degree, similar to Cruz. I thought that Sanders could win Iowa fairly easily due to the demographics. But the young voters didn't come out like I thought, the older voters stuck more to Clinton more than I thought, and the various polls I saw appear to be more indicative of younger voters than overall voters. So yeah, that was surprising to me. Maybe not to the universe, but it was to me. If that's absurd, okay. Who cares, right? At least it's not stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Well, when you don't win and you declare that this was awesome, chances are good it's spin. Not sure "it was like winning" equates to awesome, but spin away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Not sure "it was like winning" equates to awesome, but spin away. After the result, check out Sander's video in this article - the "I am overwhelmed and I am moved". He certainly is celebrating it like it's this awesome thing, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 19 minutes ago, Kalbear said: The positive things you said: This is pretty clearly spin. I have no idea why you'd want to ignore the conversation of the last month or the forecasting of the last month to make yourself believe that it's 'stunning' that Sanders would do so well, I have even more confusion why you'd call it stunning in one post and then post polls showing why I shouldn't be stunned. Why is it okay that you're stunned by the result but I can't be surprised by the result? It seems like you want to make this a major result for Sanders (like the polls predicted, apparently) but then be critical when someone...was surprised that the polls weren't exactly right. Seems very odd. The first quote I own and have reiterated moments ago, so I have no idea what your point is bringing it up again. The next two you appear not to be reading closely, at all. The first points out that Clinton was expected to do well, in response to your stated surprise- I said nothing about Sanders' result being surprising there. The second makes the distinction between the past month when everyone recognized the challenge Sanders posed in Iowa (reflected in the polls), and back at the beginning of the campaign, when they did not . Again, Sanders' result was not surprising in the context of last month, but in the pre-race, grand scheme of things, context. Quote And yet I have that idea. I was expecting that Sanders being able to mobilize a lot of people would affect the caucus to a greater degree, similar to Cruz. I thought that Sanders could win Iowa fairly easily due to the demographics. But the young voters didn't come out like I thought, the older voters stuck more to Clinton more than I thought, and the various polls I saw appear to be more indicative of younger voters than overall voters. So yeah, that was surprising to me. Maybe not to the universe, but it was to me. If that's absurd, okay. Who cares, right? At least it's not stunning. Ok, I believe you. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: It wasn't like she had a resounding victory. There is a 2 delegate difference, and the final vote was 49.9% to 49.6%. Both sides' spin is fair. That's my takeaway. Yeah, Kal, I think Sanders has every right to be excited. Getting excited over a close result is a bit different than claiming "This is awesome", don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I don't know you why you guys are bickering over this. it's all speculative at this point. i don't think we have any models to account for it accurately, TBH. It;s gonna play out the way it plays out, why not just watch and see what happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Because that's what we DO, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Just now, Bonesy said: Because that's what we DO, man. ha. fair point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: That's my takeaway. Yeah, Kal, I think Sanders has every right to be excited. Getting excited over a close result is a bit different than claiming "This is awesome", don't you think? Not when he's saying things like "I am overwhelmed and I am moved", no. I think me characterizing his opinion as 'this is awesome' is not particularly unreasonable. Compare that to Trump's short conciliatory speech for an example of someone who isn't claiming second place is good. Thought this was interesting too - the problem of Iowa in 2008 for Clinton (and the boost Obama got) was that he clearly won. And a black man winning in Iowa with those demographics is much, much more surprising than Sanders doing well there. (though boy, look at Huckabee. Huckabee! Wow). Quote I don't know you why you guys are bickering over this. it's all speculative at this point. i don't think we have any models to account for it accurately, TBH. I think on the democratic side the models are fairly reasonable for predictive quality. The republican ones are a lot more weird due to the lack of party decides stuff as well as the free press and polling that Trump has gotten, which has thrown everything off. For democrats though not a lot has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Not when he's saying things like "I am overwhelmed and I am moved", no. I think me characterizing his opinion as 'this is awesome' is not particularly unreasonable. Compare that to Trump's short conciliatory speech for an example of someone who isn't claiming second place is good. Eh, that's kind of Trump's default position, isn't it? I'm half surprised he didn't call himself a loser. Plus, he lost by 3.3%, not .3% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 8 minutes ago, Bonesy said: Because that's what we DO, man. Now I can't stop thinking about the opening scene of the D.E.N.N.I.S. System. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.