• 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.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.

kess

Member
Biden still has a fairly useful role to play on visibility alone, he'll probably have some pithy snark to throw Trump's way closer to the election.

I don't think it was inconceivable that Beau Biden might have been a very viable presidential candidate at some point in the future if not for his untimely death. He had a good record, formidable credentials, and was well-spoken and gregarious. He absolutely would have been a better candidate than his father.
 

Mael

Member
I don't think Clinton supporters realize that Clinton's coalition is basically "not young Sanders fans" because it's only a two way race. Many of the folks supporting Clinton for electability or experience are doing so because they have no other options. Biden would steal a decent chunk of that vote.

Isn't Sanders losing because people don't know about him or something?
How can you have a portion of the electorate that is "against" him when they don't even know him.
It's like arguing Trump's base has a significant "not Cruz" base that aren't only for Trump because they don't have a choice or something.
 
I do wonder what would've happened in Biden would've gotten in the race. My guess is that he would've cut more into Bernie's voter base with rural whites than Clinton's, given what we know now.

At the same time, Biden is one of the most lovable men in the country, has a more storied career as an actual elected official than Clinton, has bona fides with the white working class that would cut into Bernie's support, and can use the cache he has built up with the electorate in the last 8 years to overcome the reality that he is a mediocre campaigner. I think he still would have lost the South to Hillary, but the margins would not have been NEARLY as bad, and he'd thus be able to overcome her in the blue states where Bernie now has some momentum.

Hillary could have been beaten, but the right candidate did not emerge.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
from David Plouffe. I would add New Mexico to the Hillary column but everything else looks fine.

There are 22 contests left. I would at this point predict Clinton wins 12 ( New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Guam, West Virginia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, New Jersey and Washington D.C.)and Sanders wins 10 (Wyoming, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota.)
 

Holmes

Member
Using the "he's only losing because nobody knows him" excuse at this point of the game is counter-productive. People should know him by the time more than half of the delegates have been awarded. It's like saying "this sports team is only losing because their players are worse than the other team's".
 

Captain Pants

Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
Biden still has a fairly useful role to play on visibility alone, he'll probably have some pithy snark to throw Trump's way closer to the election.

It would be a cream dream if he became Hillary's attack dog. I have a feeling Biden could get under Trump's skin on a whole new level.
 
The fact that Hillary rolled out so much establishment support during the period in which it seemed like Biden might run tells me that he didn't have much establishment support, if any. I'm sure some Obama loyalists would have jumped on board but overall people realized Hillary would be the nominee a long time ago.

I was on board Biden's shadow campaign (or whatever you want to call it) in late 2014 and he was wavering even at that point. And by the time he seemingly was ready to run the health problems of his son began escalating.

For the record I don't believe he could have beaten Hillary.
 
Biden still has a fairly useful role to play on visibility alone, he'll probably have some pithy snark to throw Trump's way closer to the election.

I don't think it was inconceivable that Beau Biden might have been a very viable presidential candidate at some point in the future if not for his untimely death. He had a good record, formidable credentials, and was well-spoken and gregarious. He absolutely would have been a better candidate than his father.
Joe had all those great Onion articles. Free media!

Biden’s Buffalo Wing Challenge Dinner Not Sitting Too Well:
1200.jpg
 
If Biden was such a strong candidate he would not have dropped out in 88 and gotten 1% if 08. Obama and Clinton despite her faults got 17 million votes against the once in the lifetime candidate.

Hillary chased out the sitting Vice President of the United States from running. I'll give you the honest and trustworthiness but that's it. The party wanted Hillary and not Joe for x y and z reasons.

Biden would not have been Gore and chased out Sanders like Gore did to Bradley. Biden has a much longer record for Sanders team to pick apart and owning the Obama record too. He is to the right of Hillary on some issues.
I agree. Here is the last poll including Biden, from January:

When asked whom they would support if Clinton dropped out of the race, 50% said Sanders, 26% picked Vice President Joe Biden, 8% picked former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (who isn’t a Democrat but is reportedly mulling a third-party run), and 3% said California Gov. Jerry Brown. Just 4% said they’d pick the only other Democrat actually in the race, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.
http://www.investors.com/politics/trumps-lead-shrinks-as-attacks-on-cruz-appear-to-backfire-poll/

I think Bernie could well have beaten Biden in a head-to head-race. Biden's southern firewall would probably save him, but I think Bernie would have easily won IA/NH/NV (Clinton at least had enthusiastic support among older Iowan women and longstanding ties with the Cullinary Union in Vegas to save her in the caucus states), causing a mass establishment freakout.

I think Bernie might have also won the first three states in a three way Clinton/Biden/Sanders race. It would have been messy.
 

noshten

Member
You can't pretend that a section of Bernie's support isnt just Not Clinton. In a competitive three person race, Bernie is a distant third....especially when the other candidate is to the Right of Hillary.

Bernie would have kept that high margin among young voters and independents. Which is his base I don't see Biden really making any substantial inroads with these voters or efforts. Biden's voters are elsewhere which is reflected by the polling during the whole BidenDraft period.
 
I think Bernie then becomes a marginal candidate no one cares about. It would be closer but it seems like Biden didn't run because he realized the party would back her over him

Lol. Bernie success is due to him, not for being the anti Clinton. He would be winning by a landslide with Clinton and Joe dividing the South.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
from David Plouffe. I would add New Mexico to the Hillary column but everything else looks fine.

I disagree with this a bit, so I would do:

Clinton:

New York
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Guam
Virgin Islands
Puerto Rico
California
New Jersey
New Mexico
Washington D.C.

Sanders:

Wyoming
Wisconsin
Rhode Island
Indiana
Kentucky
Oregon
Montana
West Virginia
North Dakota
South Dakota

My guess is that Indiana and Rhode Island are the closest races left.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
I think Biden would have ended up being better due to the unique nature of this primary season, where authenticity and personal charisma are at a premium, and facts and foot-in-mouth issues aren't nearly as important (thanks Trump!).
 
Hillary is not winning a closed primary in West Virginia. All of those Trump fans and Republican voters shut out of the Republican primary will be voting for Bernie.
 

pigeon

Banned
I think this is the first time I've seen pigeon say "lol" or "haha"

I think you're WATCHING ME TOO CLOSELY

I prefer haha to lol but lol was the thing that happened in that post for some reason. Sometimes you have to be agile. Also usually I'm arguing with people and laughing at them would just be rude.
 

Holmes

Member
Lol. Bernie success is due to him, not for being the anti Clinton. He would be winning by a landslide with Clinton and Joe dividing the South.
Yeah, Dixiecrats in Oklahoma, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and in the Florida panhandle love him!
 
Yeah, Dixiecrats in Oklahoma, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and in the Florida panhandle love him!

They would still support him over Joe Biden, Obama's VP, going by the logic you are implying.

I don't think such logic is true, though. Bernie won because of what he is saying and because he is a well differentiated candidate. I don't think Joe woud have been able to do that.
 
I disagree with this a bit, so I would do:

Clinton:

New York
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Guam
Virgin Islands
Puerto Rico
California
New Jersey
New Mexico
Washington D.C.

Sanders:

Wyoming
Wisconsin
Rhode Island
Indiana
Kentucky
Oregon
Montana
West Virginia
North Dakota
South Dakota

My guess is that Indiana and Rhode Island are the closest races left.

You don't think California will be close?
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I disagree with this a bit, so I would do:

Clinton:

New York
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Guam
Virgin Islands
Puerto Rico
California
New Jersey
New Mexico
Washington D.C.

Sanders:

Wyoming
Wisconsin
Rhode Island
Indiana
Kentucky
Oregon
Montana
West Virginia
North Dakota
South Dakota

My guess is that Indiana and Rhode Island are the closest races left.

Clinton:

New York
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Guam
Virgin Islands
Puerto Rico
California
New Jersey
New Mexico
Washington D.C.
Indiana

Sanders:

Wyoming
Wisconsin
Kentucky
Oregon
Montana
West Virginia
North Dakota
South Dakota
 

pigeon

Banned
Maybe central/northern California?

Central Cali is heavily Hispanic. I think he is weaker there.

Marin and points north might go for him. Actually I think he loses Marin proper because it's a bougie dystopia but past that he has a good shot. But there are just way fewer people there.

Basically if Sanders loses the Bay by 10 points and LA County by at least that I don't see any way he comes even close.
 
Hillary will win nearly all closed primaries, but open primaries will be close to both though I see Hillary winning or losing a few some of them by a few points as shown by Mass, Missouri, Ohio, and MI.
 

Holmes

Member
Dixiecrats in the South (who generally vote Republican anyway) don't give two craps about Sanders' message. They voted for him because he not only didn't associate himself with Obama, but he has actively criticized him too.
 
Central Cali is heavily Hispanic. I think he is weaker there.

Marin and points north might go for him. Actually I think he loses Marin proper because it's a bougie dystopia but past that he has a good shot. But there are just way fewer people there.

Basically if Sanders loses the Bay by 10 points and LA County by at least that I don't see any way he comes even close.

Thats true.Maybe Berkley? I saw Oakland as having 2nd highest $$$ for sanders outside of Seattle
 
I'm amazed Sanders has done as well as he has with that tax plan. I would think that the majority of his supporters would evaporate if you told them they wouldn't have a tax return or would owe when they're used to getting enough money from their tax return to alleviate a paycheck to paycheck situation or make a larger purchase than they normally would at that time of year.

Not that he would even be able to implement it, anyways...

It's reassuring that his general message was that well received. That's about as much of a victory as Sanders could hope for.
 

zou

Member
Seeing the real reason that Sanders "lost" in the South, I think it's only fair that super delegates from those states should be free to vote their heart and endorse him. Though to be fair, those delegates actually shouldn't count at all, Obama didn't compete in Florida and Michigan in 2008 and those states lost their delegates.

It's amazing that he still managed to win almost as many states as Clinton..

 

NeoXChaos

Member
States/territories won by Hillary in 2008 & 2016:
1. American Samoa
2. Arizona
3. Arkansas
4. Florida (Obama did not contest this state in 2008)
5. Massachusetts
6. Ohio
7. Tennessee
8. Texas

States/territories won by Hillary in 2008 but lost in 2016:
1. Michigan (Obama did not contest this state in 2008)
2. New Hampshire
3. Oklahoma

States/territories lost by Hillary in 2008 but won in 2016:
1. Alabama
2. Georgia
3. Illinois
4. Iowa
5. Louisiana
6. Mississippi
7. Missouri
8. Nevada
9. North Carolina
10. South Carolina
11. Virginia

States/territories won by Hillary in 2016 that weren't included in 2008:
1. Northern Marianas Islands
 

Paskil

Member
Seeing the real reason that Sanders "lost" in the South, I think it's only fair that super delegates from those states should be free to vote their heart and endorse him. Though to be fair, those delegates actually shouldn't count at all, Obama didn't compete in Florida and Michigan in 2008 and those states lost their delegates.

It's amazing that he still managed to win almost as many states as Clinton..


I assume your email tag "just kidding" in your post is because you know that those two states were eliminated due to their primary calendar fuckery.
 
You can't pretend that a section of Bernie's support isnt just Not Clinton. In a competitive three person race, Bernie is a distant third....especially when the other candidate is to the Right of Hillary.

Martin O'Malley was to the right of Hillary and there was just no appetite for him. That said, he performed about as well in 2016 as Biden did in 2008.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom