-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)
- Thread starter Bughouse
- Start date
- Status
as i told Piccolo Daimao, i don't think the number deficit mattered. he won anyways with how powerful and moving he was. speaking of bernie. ,3,
They can't electronically count votes at the caucus because there's technically no "cast" votes.
It's kind of strange that people hype up the Iowa caucuses to begin with, given that the state's population is not representative of the United States as a whole. I keep seeing people like "Oh no Cruz won Iowa this is bad news," no, not really, because just because a candidate wins Iowa doesn't mean they get the nomination - Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in 2008 and Rick Santorum won it in 2012. If anything, it's an indicator of who will drop out due to lack of support (Huckabee, Paul, O'Malley this year for example)
However, I feel like it also showed that the race between Clinton and Sanders is closer than internet polls would have you believe. The polls I'm seeing still give Clinton a comfortable double-digit lead over Sanders and yet in Iowa, she only beat Sanders by a razor-thin margin (what was the final count, like, 0.3% margin?) Then again, random polls are less representative of the United States as a whole than just picking out one random state from the United States. I mean, think about it, just a couple of years ago, we'd have been saying, "Who the hell is Bernie Sanders?" but now he actually has a shot against a candidate who was effectively running unopposed before he entered the race.
However, I feel like it also showed that the race between Clinton and Sanders is closer than internet polls would have you believe. The polls I'm seeing still give Clinton a comfortable double-digit lead over Sanders and yet in Iowa, she only beat Sanders by a razor-thin margin (what was the final count, like, 0.3% margin?) Then again, random polls are less representative of the United States as a whole than just picking out one random state from the United States. I mean, think about it, just a couple of years ago, we'd have been saying, "Who the hell is Bernie Sanders?" but now he actually has a shot against a candidate who was effectively running unopposed before he entered the race.
Only 1 out of the last three candidates to win Iowa went onto to win the candidacy. The votes have really no effect on the outcome in the end. Rather, it's important because it sets a pace for the rest of the race. It gives people insights that polls in no way reliably can. Trump was trumped up. Rubio has a chance. Sanders has an incredibly strong chance. These are all things that will affect future votes.
Let's dispel this fiction once and for all that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing; he's undergoing a systematic effort to change this country and make America more like the rest of the world. If I'm elected we'll embrace what makes America the greatest country in the world.
nope, hes just an establishment robot like obama
Everyone on the news is talking up Bernie's weakness with minorities-- do we have racial demographic breakdown data from the New Hampshire? Then again, if everyone is using Iowa's popcorn bin counting method, the chances are high that answer is 'no.'
I guess you could call me a "Rubio fan", but that is really only because the competition is such trash, I mean if I thought he could win I would put my support behind Kasich or Bush but seeing that Rubio seems to be doing the best job, and the four other candidates, Cruise, Trump, Hillary, and Sanders are on my really don't want as my next president list Rubio ends up being the one I am throwing my support to as much as I think he is fairly mediocre. So yes but no.
aleuser or something like that is
As someone who lives in New Hampshire it's basically all white with a few black people in Manchester
That's not really the point... Unless by few you literally mean a few. Even if you had only 500 "data points" (people) that would be a fairly robust sample you could do stats with. I assume there are well more than 500 blacks in the entire state.
Not knowing much about caucus logistics though, I guess it wouldn't surprise me if a good deal less than 500 blacks showed up to vote.
New Hampshire is about 1 million people and about 1% Black. That gives 10k Black New Hampshirites.
About 500k people voted in the primaries overall, so let's assume about half of the people of all demographics, such as Black people, turned out to vote. Most of the Black New Hampshirites presumably voted in the Democratic primary, so I'd be willing to say there's about 4,000 potential data points... but you don't get breakdown from the vote itself, only from exit polls. And far from everyone is exit polled.
About 2k of the about 250k people who voted in the Democratic primary were exit polled, or less than 1%. ...which would mean exit polls, if they even asked about race in New Hampshire (which they don't), would only capture the opinions of about 40 Black people.
Yeah. There's just no data.
Sucks :/
As someone who has worked in Market Research, that just seems like a really dumb way to organize data collection for this type of event, and makes me think that papers talking about voter demographics (not polls) may well be talking out of their arses.
If you actually had a robust way to collect data on actual voters (and as a voter, you should be totally motivated to have your data collected since it adds to your demographic's political representation/importance), you would have enough black voters to make some relevant observations. Even without being random, and only coming from one state, I'd be willing to call it a fair model, close enough to being representative.
Last edited:
Deck Knight^^^
I'm not a supporter, but Cruz is probably the GOP's best chance at the presidency at this point tho.
Oh who are you kidding? Trump is definitely their best bet! Cruz is supported by many special interest who are ruining our country, including the Koch brothers! He looks to me like a puppet at best, doing the bidding of the billionaire class, corporations, and religious fundamentalist groups, and would be a terrible president!
Trump on the other hand has a huge following. The scary thing is that Bill Maher, who is a liberal news show host, says that Cruz would be the better alternative if he had to choose between him and Trump (before hilariously drinking and spitting out some bleach, but don't let that fool you into thinking he was joking!). "Cruz might be the worst president we ever had, but Trump might very well be our last".
Even scarier is that due to all the issues with Hillary, if she is the Democratic nominee, Trump might and probably will use the e-mail scandal and her connections to Wall Street against her to sway voters, and might very well be unstoppable. This is probably why Sanders stands a much better chance at beating Trump, who doesn't have these issues.
And given the company that he has attracted, his proposals (killing the families of ISIS, shipping illegal aliens en mass), and some of the things that he has said (recalling the days where protesters left in ambulance gurneys and handcuffs), we have to start asking the question: is this guy really worth it? Bernie has a more pleasant personality, and isn't so far to the right like this potential loose cannon!
Trump on the other hand has a huge following. The scary thing is that Bill Maher, who is a liberal news show host, says that Cruz would be the better alternative if he had to choose between him and Trump (before hilariously drinking and spitting out some bleach, but don't let that fool you into thinking he was joking!). "Cruz might be the worst president we ever had, but Trump might very well be our last".
Even scarier is that due to all the issues with Hillary, if she is the Democratic nominee, Trump might and probably will use the e-mail scandal and her connections to Wall Street against her to sway voters, and might very well be unstoppable. This is probably why Sanders stands a much better chance at beating Trump, who doesn't have these issues.
And given the company that he has attracted, his proposals (killing the families of ISIS, shipping illegal aliens en mass), and some of the things that he has said (recalling the days where protesters left in ambulance gurneys and handcuffs), we have to start asking the question: is this guy really worth it? Bernie has a more pleasant personality, and isn't so far to the right like this potential loose cannon!
The obvious question to ask at this point is whether Bernie Sanders would win against Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee so it is either that Sanders wins against Clinton to win against Trump in the general election or Clinton wins against Sanders to lose against Trump.
Nowadays I am confused about how, while the widespread hatred against Trump feels genuine to me, people fail to alternatively support Sanders, the one and only candidate who would, without doubt, prevent Trump from reaching the presidency.
Either way, though, it would be a win-win for the country because it is either that Sanders or Trump gets elected, the only two candidates this election cycle with any qualifications as presidential material.
Sanders supporters need to hope for a win against Clinton in the primaries as he would easily win against Trump in a general election, while Trump supporters need to hope for Clinton's nomination as the democratic candidate as he would easily win against Clinton.
I am not sure if sunny004 was being sarcastic as well, but yeah, Cruz has zero chance of winning, alike Clinton.
In my opinion.
Nowadays I am confused about how, while the widespread hatred against Trump feels genuine to me, people fail to alternatively support Sanders, the one and only candidate who would, without doubt, prevent Trump from reaching the presidency.
Either way, though, it would be a win-win for the country because it is either that Sanders or Trump gets elected, the only two candidates this election cycle with any qualifications as presidential material.
Sanders supporters need to hope for a win against Clinton in the primaries as he would easily win against Trump in a general election, while Trump supporters need to hope for Clinton's nomination as the democratic candidate as he would easily win against Clinton.
I am not sure if sunny004 was being sarcastic as well, but yeah, Cruz has zero chance of winning, alike Clinton.
In my opinion.
Well, I agree with your opinion.
I think that voters have underestimated how much trouble that Clinton's troubles will cause for her in the general election. Maybe Sander's winning streak is an indication that people realize that not only does he represent the middle class's best hope, but that he is the best chance of keeping the White House Democratically controlled. I don't think it's be good for the country if the Republicans ran the White House and the Senate! And this election is extremely important, because that accursed Citizen's United ruling needs to be overturned. If a conservative judge is appointed, it will set back politics for so many decades, and the country will continue to be run by corporations and billionaires from the shadows, and Trump hasn't said anything about outlawing that.
Trump is against outsourced labour, the TPP and globalist policies in general. They're extremely damaging positions for the corporate elite. And he repeatedly called out big donors, I don't know what you're talking about.
Could you explain why a conservative Supreme Court would be bad? Because they wouldn't encourage a gun grabbing frenzy?
I know you're not a Trump supporter, but I appreciate the questions. I really don't see the problem and honestly people who don't know why Trump gets support (it's not because we're racist or naive, though I'm not accusing JES of this) hasn't been around Trump supporters. I've looked into Bernie, and I like Trump far more out of the candidates remaining.
No, because there are probably people are lining up to challenge Citizen's United. Citizen's United is what allows billionaires to contribute as much as they want to campaign contributions, and who does this doesn't even have to be transparent. These are the people who are cowardly controlling the country from the shadows, and are a huge part of the reason our country is in the terrible shape it is in. In return for these campaign contributions, recipients and power don't just do innocent things like come to a donor's wedding, as Trump had Hillary do. Oh no, they've pushed through policies that benefit the few at the cost of the many, from the Republican's party-wide refusal to even admit climate change is a real threat (and when they do, such as Marco Rubio, they claim that it would be unfeasible to address), to making it illegal to film in factory farms, for one example.
And while overturning Citizen's United might not solve these problems overnight, if the wealthy aren't able to bribe our politicians with any more money than we can, and it is all transparent, then maybe they will address the needs of the many, and the wants of the few. But a conservative appointee is all but guaranteed to uphold the ruling, and we'll be stuck with that ruling until at least another judge passes away. This is exactly why the Republicans won't allow Garland to be appointed: they are gambling on winning the election. And the Republicans rely heavily on lobbyist and contributor money to keep going, especially as more people realize how corrupt the GOP is.
And I haven't heard Trump say once that he'd put an end to this. If he would do this, then maybe a Trump presidency might be worth it (assuming that what the critics say would happen don't happen). Getting rid of the non transparent, unlimited, and inherently corporatocratic unlimited campaign contributions that Sanders has pointed out so many times, and is one of the reasons he has attracted large crowds, will be so good for our country.
And Sanders is also against outsourced labour, the TPP, and other horrible policies. But he also has explicitly said that he will make these sorts of campaign contributions illegal, and I hope that the people will come down like a ton of bricks on those in Congress who try to stop it. And he isn't extreme like Trump. He hasn't proposed killing the families of ISIS. Or forcefully deporting illegal immigrants and their families, even if those family members have never lived outside the U.S. And he doesn't draw crowds who have vagrantly started as many fights like Trump has.
And if Trump really wanted to help, he'd name all of the people who have bribed politicians, and let the people decide what to do with them (protest, boycott their businesses, make them explain themselves) but he chooses allow them to remain anonymous.
- Status