Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Bernie is winning the nomination race and here's whyFollow

#227 Apr 05 2016 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Clinton does have the nomination sewn up and has for weeks. If that was your metric, you already out-argued yourself Smiley: laugh


And... that's the moving of goalposts I was talking about. Prior to the voting season actually starting, sewn up meant "already has enough to win the nomination", or sewn up, as in "such a massive lead, that her opponents all drop out". You get that she's only leading Sanders by 263 pledged delegates, right? That's out of 2223 delegates earned.

In contrast, Trump is leading Cruz by 256 delegates. But that's out of only 1218 earned between them. His is a much larger lead (53% greater delegates versus only 26% more for Clinton). Yet, almost no one is claiming that Trump has the nomination sewn up. The *only* reason anyone says so on the Democrats side is because of two things: Super Delegates (which btw, can decide to switch their support up to the day of convention, so counting them now is pre-mature), and frankly wishful thinking. Oh. And I suppose a heaping dollop of denial.

The Democrats want their nomination process to look smooth, so they lie and pretend it is. The fact is that it's going terribly for Clinton. This was supposed to be an easy sail into the nomination, with all her effort saved for fighting the GOP candidate in the general. Instead, she's finding herself in a tough fight with Bernie Sanders of all people. You can try to spin this all you want, but either you're lying, or you've bought someone else's lie. Clinton is not doing well. Not by any sane metric.

If the only support you have for her doing well is that she's winning by technicality, then I guess you can hang your hat on that if you want. But she has massively underperformed expectations. I'm just not sure how you can keep denying this. I mean, I can see *how* you can do this, I'm just not sure who you think you're fooling.

Edited, Apr 5th 2016 5:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#228 Apr 05 2016 at 6:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ok, go find me the articles saying that Clinton would have 2,300+ delegates by early March.

Edited, Apr 5th 2016 7:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#229 Apr 05 2016 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Let me bottom line this even more. Sewn up meant "no longer expending effort to win the Democratic Party nomination". She's still spending effort. This is the metric that matters, because it's the point at which she can turn her time and money towards the general. She still hasn't been able to do that. Our assumption that she will win the nomination (which I think we all, or at least most of us agree on), is based on her continuing to fight Sanders in each state going forward. She can't just stop campaigning at this point.

And that's the metric that matters. And by that metric, she still hasn't "won" yet.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#230 Apr 05 2016 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Clinton has already been pivoting to the general election. She has been since she swept the March 15th primaries. Honestly, it's like you pay no attention at all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#231 Apr 05 2016 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Ok, go find me the articles saying that Clinton would have 2,300+ delegates by early March.


Still moving the goalposts, I see. It's not about numbers themselves, but momentum. There's usually a point well before a candidate has the full amount they need, at which the opponents drop out because their support dries up due to being too far behind. That has not happened yet. But pretty much everyone predicted it would happen in March.


Quote:
Should Clinton win, the contest will most likely wrap up quickly. As Nate Silver points out, Iowa is one of the best states for a candidate who appeals mainly to white liberals; if Sanders can't win there, he'll likely only win a handful of states at best. By early March or even earlier, media attention will have shifted even more to the Republican side -- at least until the next Clinton scandal, phony or not, comes along.


Um... Note that this was in reference to the Iowa Caucus. Which she did win (narrowly, to be sure). And not only has Sanders not dropped out (we're in April now, in case you missed it), he's out producing her in terms of campaign funding, and arguably the only reason Clinton will almost certainly win is because of super delegates. That's not a ringing endorsement of a candidate. "She'll win because we rigged the system to make sure of it". Wow.

Are you really going to continue to insist that she's not failed to meet primary expectations? Cause I'm just having a hard time believing that even you actually believe that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#232 Apr 05 2016 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Clinton has already been pivoting to the general election. She has been since she swept the March 15th primaries. Honestly, it's like you pay no attention at all.


A quarter pivot, maybe. Not the full pivot she wanted to. I'll also point out that Trump, Cruz, and Kasich have also been pointing at Clinton since about the same time period. That's not an indication of having "sewn up" the nomination. It's the basic fact that that's about the time when party debates end, so the narrative switches to the other party.

You're really stretching here. How much money is she spending on primary campaigning right now, versus how much she's spending going after the GOP? She's still spending far more money on the nomination than she expected to at this point in the race. The good news is that maybe for once I'll actually see some political advertising and effort here in California (or maybe that's bad news).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#233 Apr 05 2016 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Prior to the voting season actually starting, sewn up meant "already has enough to win the nomination"
I wrote:
Ok, go find me the articles saying that Clinton would have 2,300+ delegates by early March.
gbaji wrote:
Still moving the goalposts, I see. It's not about numbers themselves, but momentum.

Right. Well, then... Smiley: laugh

gbaji wrote:
In contrast, Trump is leading Cruz by 256 delegates. But that's out of only 1218 earned between them. His is a much larger lead (53% greater delegates versus only 26% more for Clinton). Yet, almost no one is claiming that Trump has the nomination sewn up. The *only* reason anyone says so on the Democrats side is because of two things: Super Delegates (which btw, can decide to switch their support up to the day of convention, so counting them now is pre-mature), and frankly wishful thinking. Oh. And I suppose a heaping dollop of denial.

And... uhhhh... also math?

You idiot, the reason Trump doesn't have it "sewn up"* is because he is in a multiple candidate fight where delegates have been taken out and held by other people -- primarily Kasich & Rubio (who refuses to release his prior to the convention). Clinton, on the other hand, has always effectively been in a two-person race so one of them is going to break 50% unlike the GOP contest where it's very possible that no one will break the threshold. Super delegates frankly have little to do with it; there's essentially no chance for Sanders to take the lead in pledged delegates so unless you're operating on some bizarre assumption that the supers will break for the guy with fewer votes and fewer pledged delegates it's a lock for Clinton to win.

I'll skip the standard "you are aware...?" bit and just assume that you weren't aware that it's essentially impossible for Sanders to overtake Clinton's pledged delegate lead in the coming elections. Unless you're one of these Sanders Dreamers thinking he'll win New York and California by 40pts.


*Arguably, had the GOP contest always been a two person race, Trump wouldn't have it 'sewn up' now but that's because the other guy probably would. And, again, comparing GOP and Democratic contests based on delegate count is a waste of time since they operate with significant differences such as winner-takes-all allocation on the GOP side. In fact, the Democratic proportional allocation is exactly why it's impossible for Sanders to win at this point.

Edited, Apr 5th 2016 8:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#234 Apr 05 2016 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Clinton has already been pivoting to the general election. She has been since she swept the March 15th primaries. Honestly, it's like you pay no attention at all.
A quarter pivot, maybe. Not the full pivot she wanted to.

Hahahaha... ah, you.
Quote:
I'll also point out that Trump, Cruz, and Kasich have also been pointing at Clinton since about the same time period

But... not Sanders? But... but... don't they know?? Gbaji, don't they know that the supers could break ANY SECOND for Sanders because Clinton's lead is so weak??

Well, hey, at least three people understand that Clinton has this wrapped up even if their apologist cheerleader is still confused Smiley: grin
Quote:
You're really stretching here. How much money is she spending on primary campaigning right now, versus how much she's spending going after the GOP?

Well, given that the FEC sort of has rules about when money can be collected and spent, I'm going to guess that she's spending 100% on "primary campaigning" since it's still pre-convention and thus the primary season.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#235 Apr 05 2016 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
3% and it looks like Sanders is leading, but isn't going to be able to cover the spread for it to be significant in any way other than clickbait moral victory talk.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#236 Apr 05 2016 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sanders will almost certainly win. The Democratic side of the Wisconsin population is pretty liberal and activist. And there aren't really heavy urban areas like Chicago to anchor a Clinton vote.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#237 Apr 05 2016 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
ABC has been kind enough to interrupt Agents of SHIELD to tell me Cruz has Wisconsin and proving there won't be a Republican President.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#238 Apr 05 2016 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not surprised that Trump lost Wisconsin but the fact that Cruz won the eastern half of the state and Trump won the western half is a little strange looking. I'm sure there's some reasonable demographic explanation for it if I looked. More tellingly, it at least means that Trump must have won some Congressional districts. According to Greenpapers.com it looks like he's due to receive a mighty six.

Also, a bad night for Kasich since it looks as though he's rapidly shedding voters to the Cruz "Stop Trump" effort.

Edited, Apr 5th 2016 10:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#239 Apr 05 2016 at 9:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jophiel wrote:
*Arguably, had the GOP contest always been a two person race, Trump wouldn't have it 'sewn up' now but that's because the other guy probably would. And, again, comparing GOP and Democratic contests based on delegate count is a waste of time since they operate with significant differences such as winner-takes-all allocation on the GOP side. In fact, the Democratic proportional allocation is exactly why it's impossible for Sanders to win at this point.

By way of example, Cruz beats Trump in WI by 16 points and gets 11x as many delegates (33-3). Sanders beats Clinton by 13 points and gets 1.45x as many delegates (45-31). That would be the reason why Trump doesn't have the race "sewn up" despite his lead. It's not possible for Cruz to win enough delegates for the nomination but he can certainly deny Trump the nomination as well (since delegates are also tied up elsewhere). Sanders and Clinton though are in a two-person race where one WILL get enough delegates and Sanders just can't get enough of a margin of victory to make up for Clinton's earlier major wins.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#240 Apr 06 2016 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
since delegates are also tied up elsewhere
I'd say Rubio is being a dick doing everything he can to keep his delegates locked up, but it isn't like there's a particularly good place for them to go. Wouldn't help Kasich in the least, and Tweedledum and Tweedledee ... well, that's pretty self evident.

Edited, Apr 6th 2016 10:01am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#241 Apr 06 2016 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He's just holding on the the dream that the party will look to him on the 3rd ballot or something and he'll already have some loyal delegates in his pocket.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#242 Apr 06 2016 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
No, its strategic. You can't get anything in trade for your delegates if you just release them into the wild.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#243 Apr 06 2016 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
What's he gonna get? A new suit to not fill and the chance at puberty?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#244 Apr 06 2016 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
A chance to bargain for Cabinet. I assume Kasich is in it for similar; in order to moderate some branch of Trumptown.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#245 Apr 06 2016 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, I don't see what he's going to get for 20 delegates. And I doubt he's up for wheelin' & dealin' with Trump who is the only one who might realistically need 20 delegates. Cruz isn't going to be 20 delegates short.

After the first ballot, those delegates are free to go do whatever anyway. So they're only really useful as a chip if the candidate is to be Cruz or Trump.

Edit: That's not saying TLW is wrong. Thinking you're going to trade your couple dozen delgates for a cabinet post is about as realistic as thinking you're going to use them as the foundation for your dark horse convention win so I suppose it doesn't matter WHY he's keeping them since either option is about as practical.

Edited, Apr 6th 2016 9:24am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#246 Apr 06 2016 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Its not just a trade for the delegates for Trump. Trump also gets an expansion of his base if that Cab selection helps campaign for Trump in the GE. These are votes Trump could realistically not be getting, since he's a special case GOP candidate.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#247 Apr 06 2016 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Oh, and I guarantee you that Trump will make a deal if he thinks he would get more out of it than what he can get out of some other appointment. Probably no deals with Jeb! though.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#248 Apr 06 2016 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
His negotiating position is really weak. Maybe he can get an apprenticeship in the department of transportation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#249 Apr 06 2016 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Its not just a trade for the delegates for Trump. Trump also gets an expansion of his base if that Cab selection helps campaign for Trump in the GE

The number of people who cast general election votes based on who might get a cabinet position is probably expressed by the potential cabinet nominee and his or her immediate family. No one votes based on who might become Attorney General, Sec of State or whatever.

"Hey, I thought Trump would be a disaster as president but now that I know Rubio will be leading Health & Human Services..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#250 Apr 06 2016 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
But we're absolutely certain without a shadow of doubt that the President will be picked based on their choice of judicial appointment.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#251 Apr 06 2016 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Its not just a trade for the delegates for Trump. Trump also gets an expansion of his base if that Cab selection helps campaign for Trump in the GE

The number of people who cast general election votes based on who might get a cabinet position is probably expressed by the potential cabinet nominee and his or her immediate family. No one votes based on who might become Attorney General, Sec of State or whatever.

"Hey, I thought Trump would be a disaster as president but now that I know Rubio will be leading Health & Human Services..."


You don't think establishment republicans would be swayed by establishment republicans leadership telling them to unite behind Trump? Just following orders is literally their MO.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 336 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (336)