Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mlle. Zabzie

US Politics - Primary Numbers

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

At the crux of Bernie’s argument is that he’ll create a revolution and bring in a lot of new voters. All evidence suggests there’s no there there, and that’s why the pragmatists fear he’ll sink a lot of down ballot tickets in a redistricting election.

Smart, right?

Yeah I think it’s a legitimate fear, I’m also wondering how to square it with the fact that Bernie is probably the only Dem with a true following and that anecdotally seems to be a good indicator of who wins the election. Risky business for the Dems, but I’d hold my breath and take a risk with him if I were them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Which in turn could lead to no real winner with Sanders having a weak plurality. Then what the hell do we do? I mean other than drink….  

At that point it'll be time to break out the gravity bong, tons of 'shrooms and Crisco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

Yeah I think it’s a legitimate fear, I’m also wondering how to square it with the fact that Bernie is probably the only Dem with a true following and that anecdotally seems to be a good indicator of who wins the election. Risky business for the Dems, but I’d hold my breath and take a risk with him if I were them. 

I think 2016 over exaggerated his following. He's gotten about a quarter of the vote in IA and NH and I think that's about what his following is. That's nothing to scoff at, but I don't think that will be enough to get him to the convention as the nominee because I can't see him expanding on that much past absorbing liberal Warren supporters. 

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

At that point it'll be time to break out the gravity bong, tons of 'shrooms and Crisco.

Crisco?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think 2016 over exaggerated his following. He's gotten about a quarter of the vote in IA and NH and I think that's about what his following is. That's nothing to scoff at, but I don't think that will be enough to get him to the convention as the nominee because I can't see him expanding on that much past absorbing liberal Warren supporters. 

That could be true, however, it may not matter. He’s currently leading in the RCP average. Trump won the nomination with only a plurality of the vote. With a larger field that has the potential of remaining so deep into the primary season Sanders can keep gathering a plurality of delegates without having to expand his base. If the moderates coalesce around one person then it’s a different story, but it would have to be soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

That could be true, however, it may not matter. He’s currently leading in the RCP average. Trump won the nomination with only a plurality of the vote. With a larger field that has the potential of remaining so deep into the primary season Sanders can keep gathering a plurality of delegates without having to expand his base. If the moderates coalesce around one person then it’s a different story, but it would have to be soon. 

Comparing this to the GOP isn't helpful. Trump didn't get a majority until much later in the contest, but he built up a massive lead in delegates due to their winner-take-all system. If they had used proportional delegates in those races it wouldn't have been decided until perhaps the actual convention or until people dropped out entirely. Hell, Rubio would have been viable for a crazy long time under that system. 

It really really depends a lot on super Tuesday. A third of all the delegates will be awarded by that time, and that could result in basically an insurmountable lead for someone depending on what they win and by how much. Again, it's hard to build a big lead in the system the dems have, but once you do build that lead it is virtually impossible to catch up. This, IMO, was one of the more infuriating things about Sanders staying in for as long as he did - while he wasn't mathematically eliminated, he was effectively eliminated when he got crushed in Super Tuesday last time. 

But if 3 candidates have like a 20-25% delegate win each, even Sanders having 30% isn't enough to take a crazy lead, and more importantly it isn't enough to kill the other candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump didn't get a majority until much later in the contest, but he built up a massive lead in delegates due to their winner-take-all system.

He would have just as easily won if they had more of a proportional system, because he still had a clear lead.  This notion that either party would try to prevent the clear winner - even if it is technically just a plurality - of their own primary process is entirely without foundation in the history of primary contests since they've been nationalized.  First, it's very unlikely to ever happen.  Second, either party is simply not going to do that.  Because it's self-defeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mcbigski said:

This whole topic is absurd.  But I wouldn't recommend laying that responsibility at the feet of the Secret Service.  That would be too reminiscent of the Praetorian Guard.  Regardless, let's someone make a deal with me, if Trump seizes power for a third term, I'll bring all you guys care packages at the internment camps, if you promise to bring snacks at the Gulag if Soviet adoring Bernie wins.

You do realize that when Trump says he's not leaving and drops anvil sized hints about 3rd terms, and when Pence blatantly says that Pelosi may well be the last Speaker of the House for a very long time...they're not kidding? You do know that, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

He would have just as easily won if they had more of a proportional system, because he still had a clear lead.  This notion that either party would try to prevent the clear winner - even if it is technically just a plurality - of their own primary process is entirely without foundation in the history of primary contests since they've been nationalized.  First, it's very unlikely to ever happen.  Second, either party is simply not going to do that.  Because it's self-defeating.

I'm sorry, did you actually accuse the Democratic party of not being self-defeating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kalbear said:

I'm sorry, did you actually accuse the Democratic party of not being self-defeating?

Touche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Touche.

To be more to the point, it's less about the party and more about the candidates staying in and being viable. Trump had a major lead in delegates to the point where there was literally no possible way for Cruz to win at a certain point, and it wasn't very close - but a lot of that happened early on and with pluralities. That doesn't happen in the dem system, and as a result candidates can stay viable for a lot longer - and the party doesn't apparently have much of a say. This is honestly less of a problem if it's Sanders as the frontrunner because other Dems are far less likely to stick around to make a valiant, Pyrrhic point. They would consider falling on their sword or pledging their delegates to someone else who would work. 

I'll have to play with some models on this, but off the top of my head unless Sanders (or really, anyone else) gets something like 40% of the total delegates from Super Tuesday it'll be a major mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I'll have to play with some models on this, but off the top of my head unless Sanders (or really, anyone else) gets something like 40% of the total delegates from Super Tuesday it'll be a major mess. 

Agreed, but I'd put it a little lower than 40.  Maybe 35?  In, like, the limited history of Super Tuesday, there's always been a clear winner coming out of it but one, and that winner always ends up the nominee.  The one would be Obama in 2008 - that was razor thin in both popular and delegate count - but, he racked up an insurmountable delegate advantage in the states immediately after Super Tuesday. 

Anyway, yes, if no candidate has achieved clear separation, and/or hit that 35% upon the Super Tuesday results - I will start singing your tune.  It's just very unlikely someone hasn't staked out being the clear frontrunner in the aftermath of Super Tuesday.  Be very surprised if it isn't clear by then, even this time with all the weird factors - e.g. Steyer may complicate the SC vote, even though he's otherwise entirely inconsequential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

You damn yankees wouldn't know a good time if it was staring you in the face.

please avoid using non-water soluble lube k thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Really shocking': Trump's meddling in Stone case stuns Washington
Alarmed veterans of the Justice Department said the legal system was entering uncharted territory.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/12/trump-roger-stone-justice-department-114684

Quote

 

President Donald Trump’s post-impeachment acquittal behavior is casting a chill in Washington, with Attorney General William Barr emerging as a key ally in the president’s quest for vengeance against the law enforcement and national security establishment that initiated the Russia and Ukraine investigations.

In perhaps the most tumultuous day yet for the Justice Department under Trump, four top prosecutors withdrew on Tuesday from a case involving the president’s longtime friend Roger Stone after senior department officials overrode their sentencing recommendation—a backpedaling that DOJ veterans and legal experts suspect was influenced by Trump’s own displeasure with the prosecutors’ judgment.

“With Bill Barr, on an amazing number of occasions … you can be almost 100 percent certain that there’s something improper going on,” said Donald Ayer, the former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration.


The president has only inflamed such suspicions, congratulating Barr on Wednesday for intervening in Stone’s case and teeing off hours later on the prosecutors, calling them “Mueller people” who treated Stone “very badly.”

The president said he had not spoken with Barr about the matter, but Ayer called the attorney general’s apparent intervention “really shocking,” because Barr “has now entered into the area of criminal sanction, which is the one area probably more than any other where it’s most important that the Justice Department’s conduct be above reproach and beyond suspicion.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So calculator wise, if Sanders ended up with 35% of the super tuesday haul and the current polling for SC and Nevada, he'd end up with about 622 delegates. If the other contenders ended up with 15% each, they'd have around 230 or so. A 390 delegate lead is pretty great, especially given places like California and Texas are out, but it isn't insurmountable depending. And that's assuming that everyone got 15% - if you have Biden or Bloomberg get 25% or so, it'd only be a 200 delegate lead. 

Share this post


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

You do realize that when Trump says he's not leaving and drops anvil sized hints about 3rd terms, and when Pence blatantly says that Pelosi may well be the last Speaker of the House for a very long time...they're not kidding? You do know that, right?

Yes, that's precisely what Pence meant.  Soon there is going to be no Congress for unspecified but very long time, until there's a Congress again.  No one is really sure about how it's going to go down, but clearly it's now going to happen.  That he might have misspoke just isn't possible as your interpretation makes total absolute sense.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...