I can't believe the country is about to fall for another 'Hope and Change' candidate.
Why are people scoffing at Quinnipiac? It's one of the better rated pollsters on 538's rankings.
Yeah but why not do that behind closed doors and have a unified public appearance. There's always infighting within parties but from my perspective they always try to sweep it under the rug, having it so out in the open is weird.
I refuse to believe that Ted Cruz is actually electable.
Well, given that he has a job as an elected official, you can't refute the facts.I refuse to believe that Ted Cruz is actually electable.
Yeah but why not do that behind closed doors and have a unified public appearance. There's always infighting within parties but from my perspective they always try to sweep it under the rug, having it so out in the open is weird.
I'm actually starting to believe Democrats are going to find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Parties are not in the US constitution. They formed after the presidential selection system was in place for a few elections, due to factions of politicians coalescing around particular policies.
To have party bosses decide the candidates themselves would be seen as incredibly undemocratic. It's already not a hugely democratic process as it is due to the electoral college and extremely lax campaign finance laws. This would let entrenched powers be able to pick and choose their representatives with even less input from the people.
Because you want to nominate someone who can resonate with the voters, and the only way to test that is to have them run a campaign. I know it works differently in places with a parliamentary government, but plenty of voters here largely vote for a person, not a party.
Well, given that he has a job as an elected official, you can't refute the facts.
I simply find it unlikely this one random poll that shows Sanders gaining like 30 points for no actual reason is accurate.
BuzzFeed and Reddit should hold a poll tbh.
Why is everyone shitting on quinnipiac now? They have a b+ on 538 and they were more accurate than most other pollsters on the Iowa caucus.
99% sanders
1% clinton
Why is everyone shitting on quinnipiac now? They have a b+ on 538 and they were more accurate than most other pollsters on the Iowa caucus.
What's funny is that most of the posts are from known Hillary supporters on this board, who (rightfully) scoff at other people when they dismiss polls that say she's winning.
He tied Iowa.
Why is everyone shitting on quinnipiac now? They have a b+ on 538 and they were more accurate than most other pollsters on the Iowa caucus.
What's funny is that most of the posts are from known Hillary supporters on this board, who (rightfully) scoff at other people when they dismiss polls that say she's winning.
He tied Iowa.
Actually it looked like this:Now just flip that around and you have the GAF poll :x
Welcome to GAF. Hillary is to GAF as Bernie is to Reddit
He tied Iowa.
Welcome to GAF. Hillary is to GAF as Bernie is to Reddit
No he didn't.
No it isn't.
You can say that you believe this poll is an outlier and that the margin of error probably favored Sanders. I think so too. That doesn't maker qpac suddenly complete garbage.Because two other polls released today don't match and Q didn't release internals so we don't know what the PoC breakdown is (to get this big a shift Sanders would likely have to make in roads with them but the standard wisdom is that Clinton has those demographics locked down).
Historically Clinton losing 20+ points nationally is what usually happens when a front runner loses Iowa or New Hampshire on the Democratic side, but she (however narrowly) won it. So simply not enough data, really, but the gut feeling would be that they're wrong.
Because it's an outlier from every other poll, because they fucked up in 2014 hard, because they have had Hillary's worst numbers this cycle by a country mile, they had Bernie winning Iowa (which is fine, but makes me think their screen isn't working to reflect reality).
If other polls show this, sure. But Q Pac has been an outlier this entire cycle. So.
He did. That was the narrative after Iowa. Clnton won nothing campaign or momentum wise. Sanders did.
Maybe the Hillary supporters are more outspoken here? Just my perception, I am open to being wrong.
Maybe the Hillary supporters are more outspoken here? Just my perception, I am open to being wrong.
He lost. Like he numerically lost
People dont think in numbers or in absolutes. Winning by 0.2% was a defeat for Clinton.
They had Bernie winning Iowa by 3 in their last poll. And, their biggest issue seems to be under sampling people of color, which isn't quite a problem in Iowa. Still, they missed the mark on Iowa, and have been an outlier from work this entire cycle.You can say that you believe this poll is an outlier and that the margin of error probably favored Sanders. I think so too.
Bernie winning Iowa by like 1 point is still more accurate than other pollsters giving Clinton 3-4 points in favor.
He has done nothing but disappoint me and I doubt history will view him kindly. He has made me realize hope and change people like him and Bernie are the wrong kind of people to put your vote behind.You don't think the Obama Presidency changed anything?
Long article, but worth skimming.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/obama-biggest-achievements-213487
Even if you didn't agree with the Adminstration's policies, he "changed" a lot.
People dont think in numbers or in absolutes. Winning by 0.2% was a defeat for Clinton.
There's more folks here who spend their time unnecessarily criticizing posters who support Bernie Sanders for various nonsensical strawman reasons which might skew your perception.Maybe the Hillary supporters are more outspoken here? Just my perception, I am open to being wrong.
They had Bernie winning Iowa by 3 in their last poll. And, their biggest issue seems to be under sampling people of color, which isn't quite a problem in Iowa. Still, they missed the mark on Iowa, and have been an outlier from work this entire cycle.
This reminds me of Republicans believing in their hearts that Rasmussen was right until the end in 2012.
You can say that you believe this poll is an outlier and that the margin of error probably favored Sanders. I think so too. That doesn't maker qpac suddenly complete garbage.
Bernie winning Iowa by like 1 point is still more accurate than other pollsters giving Clinton 3-4 points in favor.
And Al Gore is president and Norm Coleman is a Senator.
He lost. Like he numerically lost
Sanders fans ring loud here too.
The poll surveyed 484 Democrats and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.
This reminds me of Republicans believing in their hearts that Rasmussen was right until the end in 2012.
He didn't, but I'd be willing to bet most people polled believed that he did. And that's what matters here - perception. A subset of Sanders supporters believe he lost by a coin toss.No he didn't.
It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning.By like, less than one percent though. He got 20 delegates and hillary got 22 right? For all practical purposes its essentially a tie
He has done nothing but disappoint me and I doubt history will view him kindly. He has made me realize hope and change people like him and Bernie are the wrong kind of people to put your vote behind.
I hardly think this is a Karl Rove level meltdown.