briantw Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Gotta love how a state that no one would ever willingly go to essentially gets to pick our next president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: It absolutely was to you and I stand by it. No one was predicting a serious challenge. That article has Sanders at 30% of the vote, and says he "could" win it. Dude, please. Here's the link again. From last July. Lemme repeat the headline: "Bernie Sanders Could Win Iowa And New Hampshire. Then Lose Everywhere Else." I'm bolding the relevant part. And it's only gotten better for his polling since then. Shit, multiple times in these threads over the past few months I and others have commented on South Carolina being the real test of whether Sanders can take this because Iowa and New Hampshire demographics favour Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkess Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, briantw said: Gotta love how a state that no one would ever willingly go to essentially gets to pick our next president. Don't tell that to President Santorum. Or President Huckabee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Starkess said: Don't tell that to President Santorum. Or President Huckabee. I was being more than a little sarcastic, but to me it's crazy that such an important event is held in such a meaningless state. No offense to anyone in Iowa. It's just the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, Shryke said: Dude, please. Here's the link again. From last July. Lemme repeat the headline: "Bernie Sanders Could Win Iowa And New Hampshire. Then Lose Everywhere Else." I'm bolding the relevant part. And it's only gotten better for his polling since then. Shit, multiple times in these threads over the past few months I and others have commented on South Carolina being the real test of whether Sanders can take this because Iowa and New Hampshire demographics favour Sanders. I've read the article. I don't disagree with the view that the states become tougher for Sanders going forward. As it turns out, though, that has fuck all to do with what I said. Declaring those states favorable to Sanders is not the same as predicting the challenge an unknown Senator from Vermont was going to offer the most prohibitively favored non-incumbent in Democratic Party history at the beginning of the race. You want to conflate the two because you can't accept any remotely negative commentary about Clinton. But that's enough for me. Good night! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: I've read the article. I don't disagree with the view that the states become tougher for Sanders going forward. As it turns out, though, that has fuck all to do with what I said. Declaring those states favorable to Sanders is not the same as predicting the challenge an unknown Senator from Vermont was going to offer the most prohibitively favored non-incumbent in Democratic Party history. You want to conflate the two because you can't accept any remotely negative commentary about Clinton. But that's enough for me. Good night! Uh, yes it is. It is, in fact, predicting he may win those states. It's in the title of the article. Your problem is you are desperately attempting to spin what seems (at the moment obviously) to be only a slim victory for Clinton in Iowa into something "no one could have predicted" despite me demonstrating that people did, in fact, predict it might happen.\ You just keep wanting to ignore this because it's easier then having to walk back your snark from earlier at me and Kalbear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, briantw said: I was being more than a little sarcastic, but to me it's crazy that such an important event is held in such a meaningless state. No offense to anyone in Iowa. It's just the truth. I can't remember now how they ended up as the first one originally. I think it might have been chance, but don't quote me on that. Either way, they and NH have jealously defended their position at the top and no one wants to really challenge that for fear of pissing those states off come the primary and the general. Despite both states historically having a shit chance of predicting anything. (wikipedia suggests that Iowa's chances of picking the right Democratic candidate are actually below 50% ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Shryke said: I can't remember now how they ended up as the first one originally. I think it might have been chance, but don't quote me on that. Either way, they and NH have jealously defended their position at the top and no one wants to really challenge that for fear of pissing those states off come the primary and the general. Despite both states historically having a shit chance of predicting anything. (wikipedia suggests that Iowa's chances of picking the right Democratic candidate are actually below 50% ) Should be held in Ohio, to be honest. That's like the only state that actually matters in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Looking over the numbers, I was somewhat surprised by Paul doing as well as he did. Before the rise of Trump I thought that Paul would wind up with a small but respectable slice of the electorate, but he's been so completely overshadowed that I thought there was a chance he'd numbers like Christie or Kasich did. Instead he held onto 5th pretty solidly and actually got himself a delegate. I still think Rubio's strategy of siting back and waiting for everyone else to wear each other down before swooping in is a long shot to pay off, but his performance certainly gives him hope. And if a few more losses cause the Donald to pull out of the primary and go independent and leave Cruz and Rubio as the Big 2, it just might work for him. Carson should be a non-factor after this, (and indeed, I bet if he weren't running Iowa would have been a lot easier for Cruz, since he's the natural inheritor of all the Evangelical votes) and I'm willing to bet we'll be sticking a fork in Christie, Fiorina, possibly Kasich after New Hampshire. Bush will stay in out of a sheer and complete inability to understand what is going on until his donors decide it's time to drop him. Paul will stubbornly play it out for awhile too. Santorum is already a complete non-factor. So it's looking pretty much confirmed that the big boys of the race will be Rubio, Cruz, and Trump. What Trump does, especially if he continues to place lower than first, is the big wild card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Triskan said: A thing that sucks for Rubio is that Jeb!, Kasich, and Christie all presumably really want to take it to New Hampshire which hurts Rubio's chances of building from this. Any chance any of those three drop out now? JEB! won't, Christie seems stubborn to me and if Kasich's campaign's continued existence was connected in any way to things that happened it wouldn't exist. So I'm going with no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Also interesting is that while Clinton and sanders are basically in a dead heat from a voting standpoint it is quite possible that Clinton will win more delegates because she did better in more counties. Gotta love those shitty proportional voting rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageGuy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I feel like I shouldn't be surprised that there's a coin toss rule, and yet I am. One delegate isn't the deciding factor, but just wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 13 minutes ago, Triskan said: A thing that sucks for Rubio is that Jeb!, Kasich, and Christie all presumably really want to take it to New Hampshire which hurts Rubio's chances of building from this. Any chance any of those three drop out now? Well, you've got to figure that Jeb! and Christie (and maybe Kasich) are still thinking there is a chance for a "moderate" to overtake Rubio, so I'd say no, not yet. However, if Rubio outperforms all three in NH then I'll bet someone withdraws from the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 36 minutes ago, briantw said: I was being more than a little sarcastic, but to me it's crazy that such an important event is held in such a meaningless state. No offense to anyone in Iowa. It's just the truth. It also means that Presidential candidates keep having to kowtow to grain producers, thereby giving the world the abomination that is corn syrup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 11 minutes ago, AverageGuy said: I feel like I shouldn't be surprised that there's a coin toss rule, and yet I am. One delegate isn't the deciding factor, but just wow. No, there's not a coin toss. Iowa (and every democratic primary) is a representational state - you get delegates based on the votes you get. However, Iowa also has rules about how you get more value based on the amount of counties you get, and it's not a simple majority take all. Meaning that even if it's a 50/50 vote, if Clinton gets 70% of the counties to support her she'll win 70% of the overall delegates, I believe. This is some of the math that Obama used in his race in 2008 that Clinton had no idea about and her campaign was totally baffled about - that it's not enough to just get good turnout, you need (in some places anyway) to get broad turnout. At least no states for Dems are winner-take-all. That way lies madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: No, there's not a coin toss. Iowa (and every democratic primary) is a representational state - you get delegates based on the votes you get. However, Iowa also has rules about how you get more value based on the amount of counties you get, and it's not a simple majority take all. Meaning that even if it's a 50/50 vote, if Clinton gets 70% of the counties to support her she'll win 70% of the overall delegates, I believe. This is some of the math that Obama used in his race in 2008 that Clinton had no idea about and her campaign was totally baffled about - that it's not enough to just get good turnout, you need (in some places anyway) to get broad turnout. At least no states for Dems are winner-take-all. That way lies madness. No, he mean one caucus was a tie so it was apparently literally decided by a coin toss. Clinton won. Clearly the Mint is in the tank for her cause they are part of the Establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageGuy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Shryke said: No, he mean one caucus was a tie so it was apparently literally decided by a coin toss. Yep. http://theweek.com/speedreads/602890/hillary-clinton-wins-iowa-precinct-by-coin-toss Quote Clinton won. Clearly the Mint is in the tank for her cause they are part of the Establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Ah, sorry. Wasn't following that closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwloftheRainwood Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 For Republicans, Cruz is the most dangerous. He is universally hated in DC and is the smartest, most insidious. Rubio is a pretty face with an empty suit. I'm not even sure if Trump is "conservative", his policy positions aren't coherent, with strong fascist tendencies (A term I don't use lightly). Dems are interesting, precincts going down to coin tosses. Shenanigans in Des Moines: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus... It appears Sanders support wasn't counted, Clinton supporters insist voters "went out the door" while the less organized Sanders supporters challenge the count but can't gather the votes for a recount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Kal, please stop mentioning my facebook anything. That is unfair to the non-participants on Westeros that have no exposure to our FB. Mentioning it here is bullshit. Yes, I am a Sanders supporter! I am a partisan. And we are kicking ass, regardless of my facebook likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.