1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Who's your money on?Follow

#1127 May 10 2016 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Certainly a better strategy, no argument there.


That's true. They were at least prepared for a long run, if need be. But honestly, I think a large portion of her primary strategy seems to have been some kind of deal worked out with the DNC and other major potential candidates to effectively clear the field for her this time around, so she *wouldn't* have to worry about that and could focus more effort on the general earlier in the process. I still hold to the theory that Sanders (or anyone really) was never thought to have any chance of doing anything, and that the fact that "someone" came out of the field of also-rans and actually challenged her enough to force her to dip into her long term reserves was quite a shock to her campaign, and is an indication of just an inherent weakness in Hillary Clinton as a candidate.

Quote:
Just that there's a large enough demographic on either side that's always going to cause tension for people barely paying attention.


Well, and that's the problem I'm talking about. There always is in any general election, but Trump seems to be pulling out people who don't normally vote. So that pool is likely to be much larger this time around than it normally is. That very well may dwarf any other demographic data we look at. There just isn't a whole lot of polling data in terms of how people who don't normally vote might vote if they did. But given that these people are showing up because of Trump, it's a good bet that the lion's share of them will fall his direction.

On the flip side, I'm sure the Clinton strategy will be to push for various identity groups to show up in greater numbers to "stop Trump!", but that's a well they dip into every election. In a weird way, the Dems success at demonizing the Republican brand among those groups might just bite them in the rear this time around. Women and Latinos and Blacks are told every single election cycle that dire things will happen if they don't show up and vote for the Dem candidate. The Republican candidate is always made out to look like the devil come to take their children or something. Every. Single. Time. Doesn't matter how moderate the GOP candidate is, this is the stock rhetoric the Dems trot out every cycle. How much "more dire" does anyone really think this cycle will appear to a set of groups already inundated with those warnings? There's a point of diminishing returns on that.


I think that it's going to be a matter of whether the traditional demographic assumptions hold true (and perhaps even moreso for Trump), and whether that amounts to enough extra votes for the Dems to offset whatever new voters are going to show up for Trump (and I suppose we have to add in disaffected Republicans in there too). Basically, the Dems have to count on Trump doing so much more poorly among groups the GOP already normally does poorly with to make up that difference. And yeah, if we look just at polling data today, that looks to be the case. But some of us are looking at the exits from New York and (once again) scratching our heads about the very high numbers he got with Latinos and Blacks. They can't *all* have been showing up to vote for him out of some desire to sabotage the GOP (which is the only alternative explanation for the numbers). This suggests that when these demographics are polled they stick to the stock expected answer based on their identity demographic (and there's a host of reasons why this may be the case), but when in the privacy of the ballot booth, they do something totally different.

Heck. This factor has already been raised a few times during the primary to explain other head-scratching outcomes among various demographics. An evangelical, when called at his home and asked what he thinks of Trump may say one thing, but then vote differently when election day arrives. I know that I sound like a broken record on this (or maybe a broken clock!), but I'd be really wary of polling data in the case of Trump, especially when it's tied to specific demographics like that. Broader polling is probably going to be more accurate (although admittedly less useful in terms of electoral math), but in that area, we've seen movement just in the last few weeks going Trumps direction. A month ago, Clinton had a 10 point lead in the RCP average? Today, it's about 6 and a half. That's still a lead for Clinton, but that lead is her's to lose, and I'm not sure that Trumps negatives are going to get much higher than they are right now. I'd love to be wrong about that, but I have a feeling that I'm not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1128 May 10 2016 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I bet finding a way to say "It's all the Democrats' fault! It's all them! Not us... we're great!" is a nice way to cheer yourself up when you lose a voting bloc by 70 points.


It's not about fault. It's about political strategy. Are you seriously suggesting that identity politics isn't a large part of the Dem strategy? They associate causes with people and use that association to label someone who is opposed to a cause as being opposed to the people. You get that you're arguing that Latinos dislike Trump because of his statements about illegal immigration, right? Why would his position on illegal immigration be a problem for "latino voters" if there did not already exist an association between that identity group and the issue of illegal immigration?

Who do you suppose created that association and uses it to gain votes every single election cycle? I guess what I don't get is that somehow just by pointing this out to you, I'm the one who has created it? Uh... How does that work? Its this the political version of "he who smelt it dealt it"?

Quote:
That's cool and all. I'd rather see you guys do that than win elections. It's just weird to watch.


Again, it's not about what wins or doesn't win. I'm just stating a fact. One that you already know is true. What's weird is you selectively denying it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1129 May 10 2016 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sure. That was the big finding from the GOP's 2012 autopsy. "Welp, those Democrats are using identity politics so guess it's not our fault..."

Oh, wait... no. Actually they said "Wow, our policies and messaging are terrible with these groups." But a lot of people really wanted to ignore that since it put some blame on them and not on the Democrats. More things change...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1130 May 10 2016 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sure. That was the big finding from the GOP's 2012 autopsy. "Welp, those Democrats are using identity politics so guess it's not our fault..."


Again, it's not about fault. It's just a fact. The Dems use identity politics, and the GOP has to be aware of it in it's own messaging and approach to those groups. That's not about right or wrong, or even what that approach should be. Again. I'm just stating a fact.

Quote:
Oh, wait... no. Actually they said "Wow, our policies and messaging are terrible with these groups." But a lot of people really wanted to ignore that since it put some blame on them and not on the Democrats. More things change...


Again. It's not about blame. Why do you always turn things into some kind of personal attack? You're correct that it's about messaging, but that doesn't mean that the GOP positions are wrong, but that the way we've expressed them have not worked. This doesn't mean you cave in to the "cause" that the dems have attached to some identity group, but that you do something novel like attempt to change that narrative rather than accept it as given. I see far too many conservative pundits and politicians fail to challenge an assumption made by the left. When the fail to do that, they fall right into the trap.

The correct answer to a Democrat saying that the GOP is anti Latino because they want to enforce immigration laws is *not* to just accept the premise that enforcing immigration is anti-Latino but we're going to do it anyway (which is, sadly, what often happens), but to challenge that premise. You repeat over and over that increased immigration enforcement is good for Latino communities. You say this every single time a Liberal make the associative claim. Not once in a while. Every. Single. Time.

If you fail to attack the association, you will fail every time if you oppose one part of that association. That's the lesson the GOP has to learn. And no, I'm not sure that Trump has learned that. We'll see what he does and says in the next few months. Again though, I think he's largely ignoring those things and attacking on different angles. Which, I suppose, is another way to go. Again, you have to remember that Trump is not a conservative, and he's not a standard Republican. So the thins he's going to run on in his campaign won't necessarily be the same things that a standard Republican would run on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1131 May 10 2016 at 8:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, yeah, Trump's immigration stance was WAY different than that of Cruz, the so-called "real conservative" Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1132 May 10 2016 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Again, it's not about fault. It's just a fact. The Dems use identity politics, and the GOP
never, ever do?
gbaji wrote:
but that doesn't mean that the GOP positions are wrong, but that the way we've expressed them have not worked.
Yeah. They're difficult to express because they are wrong. Too bad you can't untie a half century of racism and elitism from your party, huh?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1133 May 11 2016 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I still hold to the theory that Sanders (or anyone really) was never thought to have any chance of doing anything, and that the fact that "someone" came out of the field of also-rans and actually challenged her enough to force her to dip into her long term reserves was quite a shock to her campaign, and is an indication of just an inherent weakness in Hillary Clinton as a candidate.
You can hold onto your theories for as long as you want. The facts prove otherwise, though.
gbaji wrote:
Well, and that's the problem I'm talking about.
So you're agreeing there are just enough contrarians to create clickbait articles to confuse idiots into believing there's more going on than there actually is now?
Jophiel wrote:
Oh, yeah, Trump's immigration stance was WAY different than that of Cruz, the so-called "real conservative" Smiley: laugh
Since Ted Cruz's problem was that he was "too conservative," guess that means Trump is as well.

Edited, May 11th 2016 9:45am 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.
#1134 May 11 2016 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think that it's going to be a matter of whether the traditional demographic assumptions hold true (and perhaps even moreso for Trump), and whether that amounts to enough extra votes for the Dems to offset whatever new voters are going to show up for Trump (and I suppose we have to add in disaffected Republicans in there too). Basically, the Dems have to count on Trump doing so much more poorly among groups the GOP already normally does poorly with to make up that difference.

Well, no. The Democrats just need to do as well as they did in 2012 to win. Or less well than in 2012, really since that was a comfortable win and they could afford to lose a couple states. Technically, they don't even need to do THAT well since demographics change and there's more Hispanic voters now than there was four years ago. Both in general population numbers and also a spike in Hispanic voter registration this cycle.

That's always been the problem for Trump and, frankly, a continuing problem for the GOP. When your main voter bloc is older white guys, you eventually run out of older white guys who weren't already voting for you last time. And the US is creating fewer white guys than it is other demographic groups.
Quote:
And yeah, if we look just at polling data today, that looks to be the case. But some of us are looking at the exits from New York and (once again) scratching our heads about the very high numbers he got with Latinos and Blacks. They can't *all* have been showing up to vote for him out of some desire to sabotage the GOP (which is the only alternative explanation for the numbers).

lolwut?

Sure, Latinos broke like 60% for Trump in the NY primary -- and made up 5% of the Republican votes. Blacks made up 3% of the NY GOP votes. "Very high numbers" is a relative term. 60% of 5% means a whopping 3% of Trump's New York votes came from Latinos. 15,800 votes total for the state.

Edited, May 11th 2016 9:44am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1135 May 13 2016 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Oh, yeah, Trump's immigration stance was WAY different than that of Cruz, the so-called "real conservative" Smiley: laugh


I just finished telling you that it's not the position on the issue that has hurt the GOP, but the method they use to express it. I happen to think that the GOP needs to go in a different direction (the opposite really) than what Trump is doing, but Trump's message methodology is radically different than Cruz or Rubio's (or any of the other candidates). He's actually taken a bit of a page out of the liberal rulebook and makes more or less absurd or impossible statements, but makes them so loudly and so broadly and makes them so appealing to the audience, that the roar of approval drowns out the rational voices saying "Um... that wont actually work". He then counts on those loud voices to just shout down any opposition that comes along.

Is this good politics? No. Not at all. Does it work? Yes. It does.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that this is a tactic that no one in the GOP has used for at least 5 decades (or maybe ever). The modern Democratic party simply has no experience running against this tactic. Again, it's not about any position he's taking on any issue. It's not about platform. It's not about policy. It's not about agenda. It's about doing something that I always criticize liberals for doing: Creating a non-grey area "us vs them" dynamic, and them making people so dislike the "them" side that they'll flock to him as the alternative. He'll just make Clinton look bad. He'll get his supporters to attack her on social media constantly. He'll bash her in every interview he gives. He'll make stuff up to say about her. It wont matter if it's true or not. She'll try to run a campaign based on experience and positions on issues, and he'll just call her names and then call on people to support him in calling her names. And frankly, she's got enough negatives that this will probably work.

I'd love to be wrong, but again, I just watched him do this to everyone in the GOP field. It's not about the positions he takes. IMO that's the first mistake people make (and I include myself in that group). It's about how he gets people "on his side". It's not what he says, it's how he says it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1136 May 13 2016 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, no. The Democrats just need to do as well as they did in 2012 to win. Or less well than in 2012, really since that was a comfortable win and they could afford to lose a couple states. Technically, they don't even need to do THAT well since demographics change and there's more Hispanic voters now than there was four years ago. Both in general population numbers and also a spike in Hispanic voter registration this cycle.


Clinton is no Obama though. I see a lot of maps that just kinda assume a status quo from past election cycles.

Quote:
That's always been the problem for Trump and, frankly, a continuing problem for the GOP. When your main voter bloc is older white guys, you eventually run out of older white guys who weren't already voting for you last time. And the US is creating fewer white guys than it is other demographic groups.


Or you make the election about something other than identity based voting blocks.

Quote:
Sure, Latinos broke like 60% for Trump in the NY primary -- and made up 5% of the Republican votes. Blacks made up 3% of the NY GOP votes. "Very high numbers" is a relative term. 60% of 5% means a whopping 3% of Trump's New York votes came from Latinos. 15,800 votes total for the state.


And? The point is that Latinos in NY, when voting in the GOP primary and given a choice between Trump, Cruz, and Kasich, voted overwhelmingly for Trump. If Trumps offensive statements about Mexico and the wall were the driving force for Latino voters, wouldn't you think they'd have voted differently? It's not as simple as assuming that all voters of a single group are all single issue voters. Clearly 60% of the latinos who voted in that primary placed something else (or a set of something elses) higher than statements or even positions on immigration reform.

And sure, you could dismiss this by suggesting that since these are GOP Latinos, perhaps they already care more about other things than immigration. And you'd have a great point. But one can also argue that GOP voters have actually paid a lot more attention to the GOP primary and each of the candidates within than those not participating. Perhaps they see something in Trump that is completely different. And perhaps Latinos who are not in the GOP, when they start paying more attention to Trump vs Clinton rather than Clinton vs Sanders (or nothing at all), will also see the same thing. I have no clue. I'm just pointing out that this is not the first time that the demographic data in exit polls have appeared to fly in the face of what one would expect based on normal assessment of various identity based voting blocks.

To assume that's just something that happened among GOP primary voters is almost certainly a mistake. I have no clue what is going on here, but it's becoming clear that our standard methods of grouping voters into blocks based on assumed issues that they care about, and then assigning them for/against ratios based on the candidates positions on those issues isn't accurate at all when it comes to Trump. The polls ahead of the election will say that people in "group X" care most about "issue Y", and based on that we should expect Trump to do poorly or well based on his position on "issue Y", but when the vote is tallied and exit polls examined, we find that "group X" didn't vote based on "issue Y" at all. There's no correlation. Again, I don't think this is something you can assume only applies to GOP voters. You've seen me trying to explain these results away for the last 6 months Joph. At a certain point, you have to conclude that the very method we're using to group voters is flawed. Because that's what the data is telling us.


We speak about "black voters", and "latino voters" and "women voters" because that's how we choose to group them. It's kinda arbitrary, but having done it, we then go on to create "black issues", and "latino issues", and "women's issues", because that's how we've chosen to group people, so we poll them in groups, and measure what they care about most as a group. But it is really contrived, right? And when you start seeing data that doesn't follow that pattern, you might want to step back and rethink how you're measuring things. That's what I'm doing right now. Not saying at all that this means I'm arriving at any kind of answer that is "better", but it's more about questioning the assumptions that are going on. I'm seeing a lot of it. I'm seeing a lot of assessments of the election based on past assumptions. I'm just afraid that those past assumptions aren't going to work. We'll see though...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1137 May 13 2016 at 8:04 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
We speak about "black voters", and "latino voters" and "women voters" because that's how we choose to group them. It's kinda arbitrary, but having done it, we then go on to create "black issues", and "latino issues", and "women's issues", because that's how we've chosen to group people, so we poll them in groups, and measure what they care about most as a group. But it is really contrived, right?
Evidence on why those groups vote Democratic over GOP. Thanks for reassuring me that I'm not supporting the wrong team (this year).

#1138 May 13 2016 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
We speak about "black voters", and "latino voters" and "women voters" because that's how we choose to group them. It's kinda arbitrary, but having done it, we then go on to create "black issues", and "latino issues", and "women's issues", because that's how we've chosen to group people, so we poll them in groups, and measure what they care about most as a group. But it is really contrived, right?
Evidence on why those groups vote Democratic over GOP. Thanks for reassuring me that I'm not supporting the wrong team (this year).


/shrug

I'm just suggesting that the very fact that we choose to group people the way we do, and then choose the issues to ask them about, and then calculate their responses based on those questions and which group they fall into, means we're somewhat artificially creating those correlations. We may then further correlate those responses based on those groups versus how those groups statistically vote, and then conclude that those issues are what is driving those votes. But that does not preclude other factors that may be involved but that we're not seeing because we're not asking those questions. That's what I'm getting at.

Voters (heck, all people) tend to make decisions based on how they feel about the question in front of them. Usually, how they feel about it is driven by those correlated issues mentioned above. Usually. But if a candidate can manage to get them angry about something else, that can outweigh how they'd normally vote based on positions on issues. I suspect that's how Trump is so successful. He's tapping into an underlying mistrust of the government's handling of all sorts of things, positioning himself as the outsider who can fix things, and establishment folks (which Clinton matches in spades) as the problem. He's going to push that concept to the public. And it might just work.

I don't know if you've actually watched any of his televised rallies, but it's actually pretty interesting. He doesn't talk substance at all. Very very little actual meat. He just repeatedly talks about all the things that are wrong, broken, etc with the country. Then talks about all the failed decisions and actions by past and present politicians (obviously including whatever opponent(s) he's going after), and then says things like "we need to make America Great again" (or some other platitude). He doesn't say what he'd do specifically to accomplish that, and he doesn't need to. He just needs to make the audience believe that the problems are there, and they aren't being solved by the establishment, and that his opponents represent and/or are a part of that establishment. It's about making an association between his opponents and the problems around us. He then just steps into the assumed alternative choice.

It's 100% about painting his opponents in negative terms. And that's why I'm so concerned about all the folks who just talk about Trumps negatives as though that's what will sink him. He's not going to talk about those. He's not going to respond to questions about his positions on X, or Y. He'll just repeat negatives about his opponents. It's what he did in the debates to the other GOP candidates. They'd nail him down on something he did or said, and he'd just blow it off, call his opponents names, and move on. It should not work. But it did. Those of us evaluating his performance based on substance would conclude that he'd bombed in the debate, but then his popularity would jump up another 3-5 % points. And we'd scratch our heads wondering what the heck was going on here.

It's kinda dumb to assume he wont do the exact same thing in the general. He will. And if the Clinton camp isn't prepared for it, he'll probably be quite successful with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1139 May 13 2016 at 9:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I just finished telling you that it's not the position on the issue that has hurt the GOP, but the method they use to express it.

Yeah, you're wrong.
Quote:
Clinton is no Obama though. I see a lot of maps that just kinda assume a status quo from past election cycles.

That's because it's a pretty safe bet that states which votes for a Democrat for the last 20 years (1992-2012) will do so again in 2016. Nothing so far has shown this to be inaccurate. If Clinton was polling ten points behind or something then sure, you'd expect some blue states to flip but that's not the case. Clinton doesn't have to be Obama/Kerry/Gore/B. Clinton, she just has to be a Democrat.
Quote:
Or you make the election about something other than identity based voting blocks.

Which isn't happening, mainly because the GOP is so bad at it, both policy-wise and messaging.
Quote:
And? The point is that Latinos in NY, when voting in the GOP primary and given a choice between Trump, Cruz, and Kasich, voted overwhelmingly for Trump. If Trumps offensive statements about Mexico and the wall were the driving force for Latino voters, wouldn't you think they'd have voted differently?

I'm not sure what you think this proves. Are you thinking you found out something amazing that not every Latino voter is basing their vote upon the same stuff that the vast majority are? I mean... the rest of us already knew that. I mean, Republicans lose the black vote 9:1 but that still means that 1-in-10 black voters goes Republican. It's not exactly like spotting a unicorn. Likewise, if the GOP gets 13% of the Hispanic vote, then -- surprise! -- a minimum of 13% is probably deciding off some other factor.

The problem is that 10% or 13% doesn't win you elections and the GOP isn't making those numbers bigger. They're actually getting smaller year after year. Part of that is not understanding WHY they vote as they do ("to support their illegal brothers") and another part is failing to do anything with what you DO understand (managing to find an increasingly worse immigration stance each cycle). But, sure, 60% of the small subset of Latinos in Trump's best state voted for him so... go Trump? I guess?
Quote:
I'm just pointing out that this is not the first time that the demographic data in exit polls have appeared to fly in the face of what one would expect based on normal assessment of various identity based voting blocks.

Huh? It hasn't. Trump got a very small number of NY Latinos (as a percentage of overall voters) to vote for him in New York. He'll get a very small number of Latinos to vote for him in the general. The only one who seems surprised by this is you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1140 May 14 2016 at 7:18 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm just suggesting that the very fact that we choose to group people the way we do, and then choose the issues to ask them about, and then calculate their responses based on those questions and which group they fall into, means we're somewhat artificially creating those correlations. We may then further correlate those responses based on those groups versus how those groups statistically vote, and then conclude that those issues are what is driving those votes. But that does not preclude other factors that may be involved but that we're not seeing because we're not asking those questions. That's what I'm getting at.
To clarify, are you saying that each demographics are primarily asked questions on topics that we suspect to be important to each demographic? For example, we only ask immigration issues to Hispanics?

Gbaji wrote:
I suspect that's how Trump is so successful. He's tapping into an underlying mistrust of the government's handling of all sorts of things, positioning himself as the outsider who can fix things, and establishment folks
False. He's "tapping" into the angry/"nationalist" white male vote. That's why he's so successful with no platform.
#1141 May 14 2016 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji doesn't understand how polling works. You get someone and ask "What is the most important issue for you this election?" and perhaps give them a list of things to choose from (randomized in order if you're doing it right). Maybe down the line you ask about specific issues ("Do you agree with raising taxes on those making $1mil+?") But demographic information is usually the last thing you ask for.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1142 May 14 2016 at 3:57 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Even if it weren't the last thing asked, unless the questions change based on your response, then it wouldn't matter.
#1143 May 17 2016 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Only seeing a single poll for Oregon, and it's showing Clinton up by double digits.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1144 May 17 2016 at 9:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Sounds about right.

Also forgetting to open your ballot until it's too late to mail it is a great way to become a non-voter. Didn't miss much though, nothing on the independent ballot besides a bunch of people running unopposed and some advisory vote about taking out loans to replace obsolete radio equipment for the fire dept. Those problems should sort themselves out just fine on their own.

Edited, May 17th 2016 8:48am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1145 May 17 2016 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Those problems should sort themselves out just fine on their own.
Those are the best kinds of problems.

91% Kentucky, Clinton lead by like a thousand votes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1146 May 17 2016 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I assumed Clinton would do poorly in Kentucky after West Virginia but it looks like she'll win it by a percent or so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1147 May 17 2016 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I didn't really see slash look that hard for more Kentucky data, but it was amusing watching Clinton and Sanders shift leads most commercial breaks. Looks like they settled on 25/25, and almost guaranteed to end at 28/27 once it is finalized. The counting in Oregon should start in a few minutes, but my shows are over so I don't really care enough to find out so I'll just wait for the morning.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1148 May 17 2016 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oregon went to Sanders, currently looking like +7. Whoever said Clinton was polling +10 must have been holding the results upside down.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1149 May 18 2016 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Whoever said Clinton was polling +10 must have been holding the results upside down.
Looks like it was a local Fox affiliate, but it's the only recent poll I can find at all. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1150 May 18 2016 at 10:02 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Whoever said Clinton was polling +10 must have been holding the results upside down.
Looks like it was a local Fox affiliate, but it's the only recent poll I can find at all. Smiley: frown

The one poll had her at +15.
#1151 May 19 2016 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Not the worst idea.

The Trump/Kelly interview was probably the most embarrassing thing to come out of this election cycle since the last few debate circuses.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 377 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (377)