Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mlle. Zabzie

US Politics - Primary Numbers

Recommended Posts

Quote

Someone mentioned your weird ass spacing earlier, and it's probably just cuz I'm high, but I'm really curious about it now too.  Like, I naturally take two spaces at the end of a sentence.    Is that some secret 88 code we don't know about?

If you're        the only one of the two of us who knows what 88 is,    that's racist of you to know about racist numbers like that.  So bloomberg moves mountains and is dealing with the reality of fighting crime, and he uses some hyperbole, then a few years later someone leaks the tape for black history month and a bunch of ball tripping people on the net decide he's racist because he talked about stuff we're busy ignoring.   Okay.   Enjoy your voyage,           sir.

Edited by The Mother of The Others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

the only one of the two of us who knows what 88 is,    that's racist of you to know about racist numbers like that.

Well, duh.  But dude, let's keep that on the DL, the white wizard or whatever might get mad at us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, SpaceChampion said:



Iowa:

 

I can’t access the Nation article.  Do you have raw numbers for the surge?   I’d been seeing the breakdown for 18-35 in previous reporting, which did not show a surge for him, but rather a modest increase.  I don’t doubt that focusing on 18-25 shows a higher gain for him, though I suspect the original numbers were exceedingly low for that demographic.  I also think that this range is precisely the demographic who’d have the fewest challenges on average participating in the caucus format, in terms of physical energy, as well as work and family commitments.

7 hours ago, DMC said:

My "hot take" from tonight's results:  With Klobuchar's emergence, it's becoming very difficult to game out a scenario where Sanders does not end up the nominee.  Unless, ya know, Bloomberg's money actually can cure AIDS.

I of course agree that he’s looking increasingly likely to get the nom with a plurality, but he just keeps looking like a weaker and weaker candidate to me.  Going from 23 points ahead in NH in 2016 to less than 2 points over nobody Buttigieg doesn’t strike me as a position of strength.  Pete and Amy are in essentially the same lane, which beats Sanders about 45 to 25, even if you assume best case scenario for Sanders that consolidation of all others would be a wash between the two lanes.   Idk if I’m missing something, but I’m seeing these two primary results as more of an indictment of Sanders’ general electability than evidence of any kind of widespread desire for him in office.  

If Klobuchar is actually happening, I tend to think she has the best electability argument of the pack, given her extremely wide winning margins.   If Warren’s finished, I’m moving to Pete or Amy, depending on which is still in and looking strongest against Sanders by the time I vote.

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mexal said:

I still think he wins the nomination. I think the media is underplaying that he’s still getting the most raw votes and probably will continue in Nevada. He will be only one left in the progressive lane at a time when there will be three candidates in the moderate lane splitting votes.

It's unclear how much vote splitting will matter under Democratic primary rules, because of proportional allocation of delegates above the 15% threshold. If it keeps most of the "moderates" under 15% percent across a bunch of states while Sanders consistently gets 25-30%, that matters a lot. This is somewhat plausible scenario with the two least nationally-viable moderates performing well in the first two states and giving them a justification to carry on- they could end up just being a 5-10% each drag on Biden/Bloomberg. But if it turns into a few moderates getting 15-20% consistently it matters a lot less. 

If the split is more along the lines of the latter case the question becomes what kind of plurality does Sanders go into the convention with and how much appetite there is for denying the plurality winner the nomination, with the obvious risk of fracturing the party that goes along with it. Obviously the closer his plurality is to a majority the less likely it is that he can be denied.

The other possibility is that if Sanders performs well in Nevada and South Carolina he will just be treated like past front runners and start to consolidate support across the party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Also also, despite all the talk of dems being motivated and excited we aren't seeing that in turnout. Iowa was barely over 2016, and NH looks to be even lower than 2016. 

To me that is a generally bad sign and a very bad sign for the notion of getting out the youth vote in support of anyone. 

Hopefully that's just because people have decided they're gonna vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is, but don't particularly care who the candidate is, meaning they won't bother turning out for the primaries but will for the general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What is 88?

It's code for Heil Hitler, given that H is the eighth letter in the alphabet.

The UK once had a Nazi organisation called Column 88.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What is 88?

Heil Hitler.

8th letter of the alphabet is H. It's not quite cryptography.

Had a client once that had Nazi tattoos all over her body (including 88). They were put there by her ex-boyfriend/abuser. She was not white.

 

Edited by Stego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1488 or 14/88 is also common. 14 in this case referring to the "fourteen words."

Spoiler: Nazi shit

Spoiler

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

 

Edited by Liffguard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would caution against extrapolating these early states too much in terms of enthusiasm and vote counts. All criticisms against Sanders can be applied to the other candidates as well (maybe with different emphasis)

Biden has never won a primary/caucus in his three attempts. What does that say about his electability chances? Its all a guessing game right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I would caution against extrapolating these early states too much in terms of enthusiasm and vote counts. All criticisms against Sanders can be applied to the other candidates as well (maybe with different emphasis)

Biden has never won a primary/caucus in his three attempts. What does that say about his electability chances? Its all a guessing game right now.

There's no guessing game. There's only one viable candidate for the Democrats to beat Trump. 

Too bad the neocons at the DNC hate him more than Republicans do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

1488 or 14/88 is also common. 14 in this case referring to the "fourteen words."

A certain Christchurch insulation company got in trouble last year. One reason was them charging $14.88 per metre:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111386125/nazithemed-company-beneficial-insulation-reported-to-police-after-christchurch-shootings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wow.

I’m kinda glad I didn’t know that before now.

Yeah, there are some things one cannot unremember. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stego said:

There's no guessing game. There's only one viable candidate for the Democrats to beat Trump. 

Too bad the neocons at the DNC hate him more than Republicans do.

The DNC are scared that he will turn the election from a referendum on Donald Trump, into a referendum on socialism vs capitalism which they feel will lose the election and if not harm down ballot races. I am scared of that as well I mean in this very thread we have moderates who hate Trump but talk about having difficulty supporting Sanders. I think Warren would have been the stronger progressive option since she had very similar policies but also was willing to say she was a capitalist and willing to support capitalism.

Also the DNC can't actually do anything it's up to Democratic voters to decide.

Edited by Darzin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mexal said:

And I think it's fairly safe to say that the very long, very consistent smear attack on the Bidens has done its job. I know he had his issues but it was very much a Hillary's email thing with him as well.

Trump's weird Biden obsession always struck me as odd because I didn't think he would be the democratic nominee.  While his polling throughout 2019 was strong, his debates were poor, and his overall campaign seemed unfocused and listless.  More and more it looks like Biden was the #1 choice for people who have paid no attention to the race.  That's good enough for a while, because most democratic voters only start paying attention when voting is about to start.  But once that happened, Biden fell apart. 

While Trumps hit job doesn't HELP, I'm really skeptical that it made much of a difference.  I haven't met a single Democrat who even thinks Joe did something wrong in Ukraine, let alone illegal.  Hunter Biden showed bad judgement OMG!!  In some ways I think Biden benefitted from being Trump enemy #1, becuase it made him seem more formidable. 

Instead, the simpler story makes a lot more sense: Biden was a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign.  Once people got a good look at him, it became obvious why he was a non-factor the other two times he ran. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×