Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
"Back That Azz Up"
Eugene Daniels on Twitter
“The wheels are all the way off in 2020. I would’ve never guessed a whole candidate would dance to “Back that Ass Up.” On a stage. With Juvenile. Live. https://t.co/00Y4AwOPau”
twitter.com
Even in the event of a Biden win this is what I expect on Super Tuesday at worst
Blue is Sanders, red is Biden, yellow is Klobuchar (the only other person I expect to win anything, RIP Warren and Bloomberg). The only real tossups in my mind are Virginia and North Carolina; I think Bernie's far enough ahead in Texas polls and demographics are so favorable to him that he will be insulated from any Biden surge.
Ultimately it comes down to margins, Biden's probable big wins in states like Alabama and Tennessee are going to be offset by Sanders' big wins in similarly sized states, and Biden doesn't have a silver bullet like Sanders does with California.
Blue is Sanders, red is Biden, yellow is Klobuchar (the only other person I expect to win anything, RIP Warren and Bloomberg). The only real tossups in my mind are Virginia and North Carolina; I think Bernie's far enough ahead in Texas polls and demographics are so favorable to him that he will be insulated from any Biden surge.
Ultimately it comes down to margins, Biden's probable big wins in states like Alabama and Tennessee are going to be offset by Sanders' big wins in similarly sized states, and Biden doesn't have a silver bullet like Sanders does with California.
Even in the event of a Biden win this is what I expect on Super Tuesday at worst
Blue is Sanders, red is Biden, yellow is Klobuchar (the only other person I expect to win anything, RIP Warren and Bloomberg). The only real tossups in my mind are Virginia and North Carolina; I think Bernie's far enough ahead in Texas polls and demographics are so favorable to him that he will be insulated from any Biden surge.
Ultimately it comes down to margins, Biden's probable big wins in states like Alabama and Tennessee are going to be offset by Sanders' big wins in similarly sized states, and Biden doesn't have a silver bullet like Sanders does with California.
Since you said this is worst case, and because Sanders hasn't performed well in sparse Oklahoma polling, I think OK should be red.
Oklahoma has been looking like a three way pile up between Sanders Joe and Mike, I assume the latter two are going to get in each others' way too much (and it's also a state that Pete can theoritically do well in) and Sanders sneaks out with the win.
CNN just compared the first serious Jewish candidate for the US presidency to an infectious virus. I can't even
Hitler would be proud
What in the fuck. This is sad.
I'm expecting Biden to win by 8 points and Bernie will be at a close second.
The large field makes the viability threshold more salient than it was in 2016.
Still unlikely though, yeah.
They're not wrong, Bernie is infecting the youth with socialisms. If you think about it, they're basically the same.
While there is some unwarranted animosity towards Warren she's also been treated with kid gloves. The interfaith council fuck up would have been a long thread if it had been any other candidate.
UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
www.salon.com
Superdelegate pushing brokered convention is lobbyist who funded GOP
William Owen gave $8,500 to the Senators Classic Committee, a joint fundraising committee backing Mitch McConnell
Expecting a Biden 10-12 point victory today. Wouldn't be surprised if it's more than that, but I also don't think him winning by double digits makes him as much a lock for the nomination as some say. He seems pretty awful at campaigning generally, and a decent chunk of the Super Tuesday voters will have voted already.
UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Superdelegate pushing brokered convention is lobbyist who funded GOP
William Owen gave $8,500 to the Senators Classic Committee, a joint fundraising committee backing Mitch McConnell
Smerconish is honestly worse than Chris Matthews. His saturday morning show is where he gets to be the "both sides moderate voice" pundit.CNN stays trolling lmao
Edit: Whoops! Beaten by a whopping 28 minutes
UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Superdelegate pushing brokered convention is lobbyist who funded GOP
William Owen gave $8,500 to the Senators Classic Committee, a joint fundraising committee backing Mitch McConnell
So, wait, that whole thing where people were thinking DNC leadership was making a conspiracy to stop Sanders were just a single digit number of supers out of hundreds? OK.
So you're just going to downplay the Superdelegate pool being tainted?
I don't think it's single digits.
In fact the NYT's article said it's an overwhelming majority of 93 they interviewed.
Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders (Published 2020)
Interviews with dozens of Democratic Party officials, including 93 superdelegates, found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates.
It was always nonsense. Just another "the Establishment is evil and against us" nonsense article.
There are 714. Even if all of them had the same exact opinion on the matter (I'd suspect that the majority of those are in a "I'll do what I'm supposed to but I really don't want Bernie to win" state), the vast majority wouldn't be in on it.I don't think it's single digits.
In fact the NYT's article said it's an overwhelming majority of 93 they interviewed.
Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders (Published 2020)
Interviews with dozens of Democratic Party officials, including 93 superdelegates, found overwhelming opposition to handing Mr. Sanders the nomination if he fell short of a majority of delegates.www.nytimes.com
I want this as bumper sticker, but would probably leave work and find my tires slashed.CANNOT BE STATED ENOUGH
I agree that they would let Bernie win if he had a plurality, but this kind of reasoning is immensely flawed. Do you think because they only only had an interview with 93 that means that the rest would say different?
I think that political reporting tends to over emphasize personal opinion to make a clickbait story. It wouldn't be the first time this cycle that that has proven to be the case.
That's some superb banjo playing.
That's still besides the point. If 93 out of 93 superdelegates interviewed said that they'd do anything in their power to prevent a Sanders nomination (which again, I don't believe they will because it would incredibly self destructive) in no way does that imply that the remaining 621 would think the opposite! If anything you'd have good reason to suspect that the vast majority of the others think the same.
this recording is sending me
Flashback: Bernie Sanders' 1987 Folk Album
Check out the lost 1987 folk album from Bernie Sanders "We Shall Overcome."Get the full story at: http://rol.st/1lzogrySubscribe to Rolling Stone on YouTube:...www.youtube.com
That quote wasn't saying 93 out of 93 superdelegates said that they'd do anything in their power, the "majority" of 93 had some form of opposition to just handing Sanders the nomination if he had a plurality which... technically could just mean that they're against handing it to him under a +2% win which... is justifiable. The broadness of the context would entirely encapsulate situations where they wouldn't be for "just handing over without any fuss" for any candidate.
Not a statistician but if it's a truly random sample, I can't imagine what the odds would be that 93 people out of 714 just all happen to have similar views that differ from the rest of the group.
I'm only saying 93 out of 93 to follow your original hypothetic where you said "even if all of them".
"There are 714. Even if all of them had the same exact opinion on the matter (I'd suspect that the majority of those are in a "I'll do what I'm supposed to but I really don't want Bernie to win" state), the vast majority wouldn't be in on it. "
This is what you originally posted, the phrase "the vast majority wouldn't be in on it" is such a major non sequitur. If you wanna argue on the strength of the comments by all means, but going "they only interviewed 93, the rest aren't on it" is nonsense.
Do you think polls have any value whatsoever?
Saw an interview with Biden outside a polling site where he told someone to be quiet and let him talk. Not a good look.
Bernie needs your energy, not the negativity.
Obviously I had thought it a complete sample when I made the first statement, so I did mess up on that end. However, the wording is still so broad as to include people who are just willing to follow the stated rules in the case that, even with superdelegates in the second round, Sanders doesn't have a majority, which should in theory include everyone, and does not bend in on the original conspiracy that the outed McConnell delegate is pushing.
He is so terrible at being polite to voters which is such a basic, easy thing.
People who even consider to vote for Biden don't care about that.
What were you expecting coming? Even before a week ago?
Biden's been telling the whole nation that he need SC...that he has SC....even went there early.
I've watched alot of regular people interviews down there... and some can't really explain why they are voting for Joe. They say stuff they hear Biden say. "He'll get it work done", "He can beat Trump"
The one thing that can be worrying is the differences between early poll surveys, compared to the results in SC. There have been YUGE differences in the past two elections.
But if you see these early polls and there's already a big difference, do some really think Biden would go that much higher than he is now...causing Bernie to go into the single digits?
That big difference (# of unaccounted voters), might get spread out evenly (because of Bloomberg and Steyer putting so much money in there) or it might go big for Bloomberg or hell...maybe Bernie.
Should be fun to watch. Because if Biden wins huge... good for him and his campaign for making it happen. But like most say, it might be too late.
Last edited:
They don't know about that, either. Assuming that the majority of people that vote for a candidate are aware of details about that candidate is too far a bridge.
I feel like the media narrative will say 'Same thing as in 2016, bernie can't win, it's over".
But like... Why did Biden even spike in the poll?
Guess one positive is Bernie was also going up in the polls also this week.
You ever see Bernie Sanders and the coronavirus in the same room? Makes you think
This is pretty tight but I'm not marking out until Bernie comes out to this tune
THEY SAY IN HARLAN COUNTY
THERE ARE NO NEUTRALS THERE
YOU'LL EITHER BE A UNION MAN
OR A THUG FOR MIKE BLOOMBERG
WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?
The MSM will go nuts with what ever positive result for Biden.... they only have a few days left to affect ST. They will take advantage of it.
If thats all he loses by I think most folks would be pretty happy in here honestly.
I'm expecting it to be closer to 20.
I gotta say that if I'd been asked a week ago what I'd be doing today I would definitely not guess that I'd be watching some mighty fine banjo playing in the middle of Boston winter, but here we are. Twitter never ceases to amaze me lol.
- Status