Jump to content

U.S. Election - Onward to New Hampshire


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

Responding to Fez from the last thread:

Quote

I'm not saying there aren't written records, I'm saying there's no telling where the information in those records came from and I gave some examples of what different precincts might have done.

There should be a worksheet filled and and submitted by each precinct chair/captain.  This NPR article provides a sample of a past worksheet used to collect the data and calculate the number of delegates awarded (it's a picture embedded in the article that you can enlarge).  I recall a report that one precinct didn't submit the paper on election night, which resulted in the result being announced with the single precinct totals omitted, but it was later amended when the paperwork was submitted the following day.  So all the worksheets have been turned in now.  

All they need to do is provide access to these worksheets.  We can determine how many people voted for each candidate at each precinct, and then confirm whether the delegates were allocated correctly by the IDP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the rundown on the Iowa Democratic Party in the previous thread, Fez. I bet this is more about disorganization and failure of involved officials than any deliberate skullduggery, but it's all too easy for the general public to assume the worst about a situation involving the Clintons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in current news:

"According to Quinnipiac, “In the Democratic race nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 percent, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. This compares to a 61 – 30 percent Clinton lead in a December 22 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University Poll.”"

Wow. That's one hell of a rapid leap.

"Bernie Sanders has the highest favorability rating of any candidate in the poll at 44%, and a net positive approval rating of (+9). In contrast, former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton has an approval rating of 39% and an unfavorable rating of 56%. Clinton has a net negative approval rating of (-17)."

Enough said about this already. Sanders supporters think this is important; Clinton supporters do not.

"In the general election matchups, Sanders runs stronger than Hillary Clinton. Sanders beats Trump 49% – 39%, Cruz 46% – 42%, and ties Rubio 43%-43%. Clinton beats Trump 46%-41%, ties Cruz 45%-45%, and trails Rubio 48%-41%."

Actually serious about keeping the Republicans out of the Whitehouse? Better take a good hard look at this one.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/05/bombshell-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-winning-the-hearts-of-democratic-voters.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Responding to Fez from the last thread:

There should be a worksheet filled and and submitted by each precinct chair/captain.  This NPR article provides a sample of a past worksheet used to collect the data and calculate the number of delegates awarded (it's a picture embedded in the article that you can enlarge).  I recall a report that one precinct didn't submit the paper on election night, which resulted in the result being announced with the single precinct totals omitted, but it was later amended when the paperwork was submitted the following day.  So all the worksheets have been turned in now.  

All they need to do is provide access to these worksheets.  We can determine how many people voted for each candidate at each precinct, and then confirm whether the delegates were allocated correctly by the IDP. 

That doesn't address my point. Which is that the number of voters changes over the course of the caucus and if that's not being recorded in tandem with changes in the delegate allocation, there will be major discrepancies. And, as a separate matter, if one caucus did it one way and another caucus another way, then you can't just add up their totals to say that's how many votes candidate X got; its apples to oranges at that point.

Scot, 

Probably not. But its up to the state if it wants to try to legislate anything. And the parties could always ignore the state if they decided to organize on their own without state funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the push to get Clinton to release the transcripts of her paid speaking events on Wall St. will pick Up steam given how she reacted to releasing her emails. I've been listening to talk radio a lot today and that's one of the issues that's gotten the most attention. The way she's been so dismissive about the issue has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fez said:

That doesn't address my point. Which is that the number of voters changes over the course of the caucus and if that's not being recorded in tandem with changes in the delegate allocation, there will be major discrepancies. And, as a separate matter, if one caucus did it one way and another caucus another way, then you can't just add up their totals to say that's how many votes candidate X got; its apples to oranges at that point.

Scot, 

Probably not. But its up to the state if it wants to try to legislate anything. And the parties could always ignore the state if they decided to organize on their own without state funding.

I'm not trying to recreate what actually happened during election night.  That's hopeless and pointless and irrelevant.  What we can do is determine how the IDP determined the number of delegates to award based on the data they received from the precinct chairs.  That data is obviously available, otherwise how did the IDP know how to apportion the delegates?  And this data is easily auditable.

If it's impossible to determine how the delegates are to be awarded based on the submitted paperwork, then how did the IDP determine how to apportion the delegates?  That doesn't make sense.  It should be possible to recreate the process that the IDP went through to generate the results, regardless of the errors committed in the precincts.

I think it's straightforward to determine voter totals based on the final numbers used to apportion the delegates.  The IDP had no problems reporting the total number of voters that participated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

Meanwhile in current news:

"According to Quinnipiac, “In the Democratic race nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 percent, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. This compares to a 61 – 30 percent Clinton lead in a December 22 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University Poll.”"

Wow. That's one hell of a rapid leap.

"Bernie Sanders has the highest favorability rating of any candidate in the poll at 44%, and a net positive approval rating of (+9). In contrast, former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton has an approval rating of 39% and an unfavorable rating of 56%. Clinton has a net negative approval rating of (-17)."

Enough said about this already. Sanders supporters think this is important; Clinton supporters do not.

"In the general election matchups, Sanders runs stronger than Hillary Clinton. Sanders beats Trump 49% – 39%, Cruz 46% – 42%, and ties Rubio 43%-43%. Clinton beats Trump 46%-41%, ties Cruz 45%-45%, and trails Rubio 48%-41%."

Actually serious about keeping the Republicans out of the Whitehouse? Better take a good hard look at this one.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/05/bombshell-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-winning-the-hearts-of-democratic-voters.html

I'm unfamiliar with how accurate Quinnipiac is (though I wonder, if it seriously predicts Clinton would tie with Cruz), but I would wait until several polls show this before predicting a trend.

RCP showed a PPP national with Clinton up by 21 points just the day before the Quinn. polls were released. (Which is up from the one before that, which showed her only up 12)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

ETA: thought it could very well be that Bernie is doing so well in the debate that his numbers are on the rise--I think both candidates acquitted themselves well in the last debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point. Out of those polls though, according to 538 only IBP and CNN are more accurate than Quinnipiac and they are Clinton +12 and +14 which may be more correct, but demonstrates exactly the same trend in movement direction if not as dramatically so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC is important because it's early and can be an accurate predictor of the black vote. Otherwise, the State itself isn't a big deal in the overall race.

Sanders will lose almost certainly, but that isn't as important as not getting blown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another poll out with similar results to Quinnipiac:

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has erased Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's wide lead for the Democratic presidential nomination since the start of year, putting the two in a dead heat nationally, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Clinton leads Sanders 48 percent to 45 percent among Democratic voters, according to the poll of 512 Americans, conducted Feb. 2-5 following the Iowa caucus. The poll has a credibility interval of 5 percentage points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of amazing that Sanders is as competitive as he is. He's substantially older than Clinton and would be the oldest US President in history by more than 5 years if elected, he's a self-proclaimed socialist (a very tame one if you read the fine print, but I would have expected many Americans to dismiss him out of hand immediately), he's a non-religious Jew, he has practically no meaningful endorsements (take a look at the superdelegate numbers), the DNC was and is very nearly overtly in Clinton's corner and, finally, he wasn't even a Democrat before this latest campaign. And yet... it looks like there is a path to victory for him -- to be sure, a narrow one, but it is there.

I still think that he will most likely lose (the minorities will vote for Clinton despite all of the things Sanders has done to woo them), but it looks like it will be a fairly close race rather than Clinton's coronation. I bet Biden and possibly Warren are sorry that they didn't even try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bonesy said:

Fair point. Out of those polls though, according to 538 only IBP and CNN are more accurate than Quinnipiac and they are Clinton +12 and +14 which may be more correct, but demonstrates exactly the same trend in movement direction if not as dramatically so.

I'll definitely be curious to see where the trend goes, especially after the debates and more state primaries finish up. 

I get the sense that Sanders's numbers, more then Clinton's, are tied to his perceived electability, and will closely reflect how he does in primaries. I wouldn't be surprised if it rose even more after NH if he wins by a lot there but also drops if he loses by a lot somewhere else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, alguien said:

I'll definitely be curious to see where the trend goes, especially after the debates and more state primaries finish up. 

I get the sense that Sanders's numbers, more then Clinton's, are tied to his perceived electability, and will closely reflect how he does in primaries. I wouldn't be surprised if it rose even more after NH if he wins by a lot there but also drops if he loses by a lot somewhere else. 

I think so too. Candidates get a bump in the polls just because the media are discussing them, and I think that's the case with Sanders. Maybe that's also indicative of a general shift of opinion amongst Democrats, but I think it's too early to tell.

14 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I had a nice chat with some political insiders at a bar near the SC state house.  They said Clinton is a slam dunk here.  That said, what happens if Bernie hangs on and does well in the NE and NW.  Could he compete at the convention?

I suspect this will all be settled way before the convention. Remember that, three weeks ago, people were talking about a "brokered" Republican convention (whatever that means) and then Iowa happened and everyone then insisted Trump was done. **

Maybe a victory in New Hampshire will buoy Sanders, but if Clinton's electoral firewall holds she can simply play the same game Obama did against her in 2008: move deliberately, ignore media spin and concentrate on picking up delegates. If she gets too far ahead it won't matter what early victories Sanders can claim. 

**I still think it's a riot that Trump, who came in second, is a loser, whereas Rubio is a third-place hero and the frontrunner is just doing OK. The expectations game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...