• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

April U.S. Primaries |OT| Vote in 20 Turns for World Leader

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tamanon

Banned
I like when Josh would lay out argument after argument and they'd just talk over him in the background and say "but the polls".
 
D

danm999

Member
BanGy.nz said:
How do they give Joe Liberman and Bart Stupak a pass and give Obama all the blame for the failure of the public option?
Click to expand...

I don't think they processed or even understood the point being made there regarding incrementalism and how hard it was to pass the ACA even under more favourable circumstances than Bernie will ever get.

They just flew into their talking points about how Hillary is a liar and won't get anything done even though the guy they were arguing against already said he wasn't thrilled by Hillary agreed with them she wouldn't get anything passed either.

Some classic listening with intent to respond, not understand.
 
R

robochimp

Member
Sohter.Nura said:
Nop, but free trade agreements, deregulation of banks and continuation of poor taxation implemented by Bush and Obama surely are =/ People forget that Obama made the Bush era tax cuts permanent. What makes you think Clinton is going to be different from Obama? They're all sand from the same sack.
We just don't have a real Democrat party right now.
Click to expand...

You're making the wrong argument, both parties push a neoliberal economic agenda and have for decades. If you want to talk about the actual differences between the parties there is no way you can call Hillary a republican.

You're just spouting nonsense.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
danm999 said:
Holy shit that's hard to watch. That section on Obamacare was embarrassing and that Australian guy must have thought he was talking to children.

They think there was a secret better plan Obama squashed because he was a centrist (minutes after calling him a transformative progressive like Sanders) and when it's pointed out how the ACA barely passed a Democratic controlled Congress they start ranting about how Hillary won't get anything done and Clinton got impeached for a BJ. Pretty sure the guy with glasses was a few sentences away from a stroke.
Click to expand...

Oh he knew he was talking to children because he talked down to them like children, you could tell he was enjoying making them freak the fuck out.
 
D

danm999

Member
excelsiorlef said:
Oh he knew he was talking to children because he talked down to them like children, you could tell he was enjoying making them freak the fuck out.
Click to expand...

I did chuckle at him having to explain he believed in UHC and that he was on Australian Medicare (2% of his annual income!) just so that they didn't think him a neocon or something.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
danm999 said:
I did chuckle at him having to explain he believed in UHC and that he was on Australian Medicare (2% of his annual income!) just so that they didn't think him a neocon or something.
Click to expand...

It was all such a farce because this guy was literally repeating over and over again that he finds Clinton boring and what not but they way they were acting you'd think he was a Yasssssss Queener. They literally can't handle even handle this guy, imagine them against someone who actually cares about Clinton, of course anyone who actually cares about Clinton should stay the fuck away from these people because it wouldn't be worth the effort.

They are literally acting like Clinton is the fucking apocalypse
 
IAmAnAgnostic

IAmAnAgnostic

Member
I like the picture TYT chose for this video..

QESMJ2i.png
 
S

SolicitorPirate

Member
danm999 said:
Holy shit that's hard to watch. That section on Obamacare was embarrassing and that Australian guy must have thought he was talking to children.

They think there was a secret better plan Obama squashed because he was a centrist (minutes after calling him a transformative progressive like Sanders) and when it's pointed out how the ACA barely passed a Democratic controlled Congress they start ranting about how Hillary won't get anything done and Clinton got impeached for a BJ. Pretty sure the guy with glasses was a few sentences away from a stroke.
Click to expand...

In fairness, that's been our perception of American politics for some time now. We're used to it
 
F

Frozenprince

Banned
I can't believe there isn't a "Bernie Sanders officially conceeds" thread.

It boggles my mind how the man can justify this any longer. At this point he's legitimately stealing money from people.
 
P

Primethius

Banned
XBP said:
Yep. It'll be great that he stops talking about issues that are affecting every single american right now.
Click to expand...

That's fine by me. I don't particularly care for a candidate whose only contribution is talking about issues. He's done that the entire primary and it's about time to give it a rest.

I don't need him to repeat himself just to remind the public every now and then that Wall Street is the devil and corruption, establishment and income inequality exist.

Pretty sure those issues will exist long after Bernie's out of the public spot light and people will still know of them without Bernie giving a stump speech after every loss.
 
S

Sean C

Member
One of the commenters on FiveThirtyEight noted that Bernie Sanders has quite a streak going of winning Clinton County. So far he's won:

Clinton County, Iowa
Clinton County, Michigan
Clinton County, Ohio
Clinton County, Illinois
Clinton County, Missouri
Clinton County, Pennsylvania (last night)

There's apparently a Sanders County in Montana, so we'll see if Hillary can return the favour.
 
D

dramatis

Member
For those who just want a speedy update.

Last night,
Trump won all five states that were holding primaries.
Hillary won Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.
Bernie won Rhode Island.
Cruz came in third everywhere except Pennsylvania, and out of a pool of 172 delegates he only gained one.
Kasich won some delegates last night, but he is nowhere near a winner.

Primary Takeaways [NY Times]
Mr. Trump’s past six victories have been veritable blowouts in which he has routinely collected a convincing majority of the vote despite a three-candidate field.

Tuesday night represented a new high-water mark for his candidacy and a dour milestone for his rivals: Mr. Trump won an average of 59 percent of the Republican vote in the five states, and his average margin of victory was 35 percentage points.

With decisive wins like that, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio will have a much harder time arguing that Mr. Trump lacks the broad support of his party at this summer’s Republican convention, quite possibly their last chance to stop his march to the nomination.
Click to expand...
Mr. Sanders cannot crack the code in Democratic-controlled cities, a longstanding vulnerability that haunted him on Tuesday. Take Pennsylvania, where Mrs. Clinton crushed him in Philadelphia County, 63 percent to 37 percent. In Allegheny County, home to Pittsburgh, Mrs. Clinton beat him 55 percent to 44 percent

Why is Mr. Sanders losing these urban centers? Because they are home to reliable Clinton constituencies: black and Hispanic voters, partisan Democrats, and older women, all of whom would be essential to a successful general election candidacy.
Click to expand...

For maths and general analysis from last night, FiveThirtyEight.
Trump won all five states up for grabs and probably every delegate outside of Rhode Island (which allocated its delegates proportionally). Moreover, many of the delegate candidates Trump endorsed in the loophole primary in Pennsylvania did well. We’ll have more on the Republican race in a separate post from Nate, but let’s talk more about Clinton’s big wins.

Clinton extended her delegate lead by what looks to be about 50 elected delegates. She did so thanks mostly to Maryland and Pennsylvania. She won by about 30-percentage points in Maryland (where she’ll pick up about 30 elected delegates) and more than 10 percentage points in Pennsylvania (where she’ll pick up about 20 elected delegates). Clinton will likely pick up a net of about 2 elected delegates in Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island combined.
Click to expand...

The Atlantic also has some analysis of their own.
It was a race for the basement between Trump’s two rivals. Both men turned in execrable performances, though each was likely to pick up a handful of delegates in Rhode Island. Kasich delivered weak numbers even though the northeastern states should have been favorable ground for him. The Ohio governor continues to cling to the argument that he is most electable in a general election. Trump’s new nickname for him—1 for 38 Kasich—is clumsy but cutting: Kasich can’t win a primary outside of his home state. Cruz was even weaker. He spoke early in the night, accusing the media of rooting for Trump because he is likely to tear apart the Republican Party.

“The media is going to have heart palpitations this evening,” he scoffed at a rally in Knightstown, Indiana. “They’re gong to be excited, oh so excited about Trump’s victories. The media’s going to say, ‘Oh, the race is over.’ The media’s going to say, ‘Donald Trump is the Republican nominee.’”

Cruz is right about at least one thing: Any such declaration would be premature. There are still too many delegates left to allocate, and too many unknown variables: what Trump’s real clinching point is, how unbound delegates like Pennsylvania’s might lean, and what would happen at a contested convention. Trump looks more solid now than he has in some weeks, though he still needs a very strong finish.
Click to expand...

The April primaries are over. Go play a game of Civ this weekend.
 
A

ApharmdX

Banned
Tallshortman said:
No, I'm not wrong at all. If you read my post I'm talking about you characterizing them as all crazies who don't think Catholics are Christian and the pope is the anti-Christ. Are you from the South? If you are you must be isolated as hell if you think most evangelicals think like that.
Click to expand...

A full quarter of America self-identifies as evangelical. Now, are a full quarter of Americans raving fundamentalist lunatics? I don't know. But I do know that Ted Cruz has gotten nearly 7 million primary votes despite claiming God spoke to him directly, and being endorsed by (and friends with) with a pastor who believes that gays should be killed. And I know that there are states where young-earth creationism is taught in science class in public schools, and where miscarriages are investigated as possible homicides.

Defend the Bible Belt if you want. I'm sure there are good people there. But there's also a lot of religious fundamentalism and insanity.

This is all way divergent from the actual discussion, which is whether Brazil is a more conservative, religious nation than the US, and how well it accepted having a female leader.

chadskin said:
Ted Cruz to make 'major announcement' at 4 p.m.

VP pick incoming
Click to expand...

How you going to make a VP pick when you're mathematically eliminated??!?
 
M

Miles X

Member
CNN asked the yet to be pledged Pennsylvanian delegates who they will pick in the convention, 34/57 have said they promise to vote for the person who won the state, i.e Trump.

This means he's back to being ahead of his target.
 
A

adj_noun

Member
I can't tell if the "I don't understand how Hillary is winning, everyone I know voted for Bernie" folks I see from time to time are serious.
 
N

Neoweee

Member
teruterubozu said:
Poor Nate. Even his super vocal defense force is non existent these days.
Click to expand...

He still deserves a defense force, because he still uses and presents polling data extremely well. People generally do an extraordinarily poor job of weighing the predictions of others, and I think Nate was right to note that Trump was a long-shot back in Summer of 2015. It's like polls being wrong in the Michigan primary-- sometimes, long-shots happen, but that doesn't mean that you should dump on people for noting it was a long-shot in the first place.
 
N

numble

Member
Neoweee said:
He still deserves a defense force, because he still uses and presents polling data extremely well. People generally do an extraordinarily poor job of weighing the predictions of others, and I think Nate was right to note that Trump was a long-shot back in Summer of 2015. It's like polls being wrong in the Michigan primary-- sometimes, long-shots happen, but that doesn't mean that you should dump on people for noting it was a long-shot in the first place.
Click to expand...

The only thing he could be right for noting is that early polling tends to not be predictive in prior primaries. Everything after that was punditry and cherry-picked pseudo-statistics. He tended to ignore this season's field that was both crowded and weak. He kept blaming the media for not focusing on Rubio enough, but Rubio did not earn any media except for his embarrassing gaffes.
 
M

Miles X

Member
Only contests left on the Dem side where either candidate will (likely) net more than 5 delegates is Oregon (Bernie) California, New Jersey and Puerto Rico (Hillary). The other 10 contests are not going to change the needle remotely.
 
K

Kathian

Banned
Neoweee said:
He still deserves a defense force, because he still uses and presents polling data extremely well. People generally do an extraordinarily poor job of weighing the predictions of others, and I think Nate was right to note that Trump was a long-shot back in Summer of 2015. It's like polls being wrong in the Michigan primary-- sometimes, long-shots happen, but that doesn't mean that you should dump on people for noting it was a long-shot in the first place.
Click to expand...

Nate ignored current polling. It didn't agree with him and he ignored it. Own damn fault and he put too big a bet on the Trump polls being soft without giving a scrap of evidence for it.

Not only that. Those saying Trump was like those people who dropped off in a 2012 were idiots. Trump was polling consistently the beat with everyone rising and falling around him. You know - like Romney the 2012 nominee. Worse. He stuck with the line as it became less evidence based to the point he basically declared polls didn't matter.

There's more to polls than top line figures. Nate doesn't seem to understand this which raises big fucking questions about his ability to read public opinion.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
The problem is Nate went full-on pundit when he kept dismissing Trump's chances. People often thought he had a model that gave Trump a 2% chance of winning the nomination, but it was basically a number he pulled out of his ass (he arbitrarily decided there were six hurdles Trump had to clear to get the nomination and then arbitrarily decided he had a 50% chance of clearing each hurdle).

Nate still has plenty of value to add to the conversation as long as he learns his lesson about engaging in punditry.

Kathian said:
Nate ignored current polling. It didn't agree with him and he ignored it. Own damn fault and he put too big a bet on the Trump polls being soft without giving a scrap of evidence for it.

Not only that. Those saying Trump was like those people who dropped off in a 2012 were idiots. Trump was polling consistently the beat with everyone rising and falling around him. You know - like Romney the 2012 nominee. Worse. He stuck with the line as it became less evidence based to the point he basically declared polls didn't matter.

There's more to polls than top line figures. Nate doesn't seem to understand this which raises big fucking questions about his ability to read public opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It was one thing early on to dismiss Trump's lead and not being super meaningful, but when it held for months and Nate was still stubbornly clinging to "Herman Cain once had the lead" it really was just ignoring the evidence that was right in front of him, especially when Sam Wang came around to Trump being the frontrunner. Wang's consistently done the best job of analyzing this primary.
 
N

Neoweee

Member
Box of Kittens said:
The problem is Nate went full-on pundit when he kept dismissing Trump's chances. People often thought he had a model that gave Trump a 2% chance of winning the nomination, but it was basically a number he pulled out of his ass (he arbitrarily decided there were six hurdles Trump had to clear to get the nomination and then arbitrarily decided he had a 50% chance of clearing each hurdle).

Nate still has plenty of value to add to the conversation as long as he learns his lesson about engaging in punditry.
Click to expand...

Trump still doesn't have it locked down, and the final six paragraphs of the article in the OP lay out the remaining case for caution of going all-in on Trump. The "6 Stages of Doom" actually does have a lot of poignant examples of how Trump could (and has) fucked things up, they've just mattered less than they could have. "Poor organization in caucus states, poor understanding of delegate rules, no support from superdelegates." Yup, all true.

Box of Kittens said:
Yeah. It was one thing early on to dismiss Trump's lead and not being super meaningful, but when it held for months and Nate was still stubbornly clinging to "Herman Cain once had the lead" it really was just ignoring the evidence that was right in front of him, especially when Sam Wang came around to Trump being the frontrunner. Wang's consistently done the best job of analyzing this primary.
Click to expand...

Wang has his own set of problems, though. He may have given Trump better odds, but he also can too much of a fundamentalist with regards to statistical approaches, and I think has a tendency to underestimate fat tails.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
The six stages of doom weren't entirely a bad concept or anything as at least some of them did identify actual weaknesses, it's just that people treated that 2% figure with way more reverence than they should have. Even Nate himself would've cautioned against taking that number too seriously.
 
N

Neoweee

Member
Box of Kittens said:
The six stages of doom weren't entirely a bad concept or anything as at least some of them did identify actual weaknesses, it's just that people treated that 2% figure with way more reverence than they should have. Even Nate himself would've cautioned against taking that number too seriously.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was tossing out a ballpark estimate. I don't think he ever really went at that number with full-force in their buy-sell-hold discussions.

Even looking at polls from last summer, I think an estimate in the ballpark of 10% odds was far more justifiable than calling Trump a clear, 50%+ favorite.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Neoweee said:
Wang has his own set of problems, though. He may have given Trump better odds, but he also can too much of a fundamentalist with regards to statistical approaches, and I think has a tendency to underestimate fat tails.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with this. He did a pretty poor job in 2014 for example. But he's really shined this cycle, mostly because he was relatively early in recognizing that Trump's support was here to stay and also because he's done a better job of understanding the impact of Republican delegate allocation rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Update 7 reduces the installation footprint of Forza Motorsport by around 15-20%, decreasing its file size by 25GB on Xbox Series X|S and 29GB on PC
News 2
62
4K
Fredrik replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games.
2
62
8K
Ozriel replied
Ken Kutaragi is the Greatest 'emperor' Of All Time and remains SIE's only true visionary
Opinion 2
73
4K
consoul replied
GTA III: behind the scenes of the game that propelled Rockstar to the top of the world
Analysis Retro Game Dev
47
8K
Uhtred replied
  • Locked
May U.S. Primaries |OT| Glory to America
41 42 43 44 45
2K
203K
giga replied
Top Bottom