|
Post by Jasen777 on Jan 31, 2016 1:18:27 GMT
Doesn't matter anyways as Clinton is going to be the nominee and the likely worry for Democrats will be possible left-wing apathy. You keep confidently stating that, in the same way people were confidently stating Cruz would win Iowa a few weeks ago. Well a month ago I did think Cruz would win Iowa, and I still think it's a tossup. Clinton's eventual victory in the primary (even if she losses Iowa and New Hampshire, the 2nd and 3rd most favored states for Sanders demographically) has a much higher certainty. A loss for her basically overthrows everything we think we know about presidential primaries. But Sanders has improved his chances from "impossible" to "very unlikely." Also I'm very cynical about politics so I don't want to get my hopes up. Though obviously Clinton is better than any of the Republicans for my views and I would vote for her in the general if I lived in a state where my vote could possibly matter.
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Jan 31, 2016 1:29:55 GMT
You keep confidently stating that, in the same way people were confidently stating Cruz would win Iowa a few weeks ago. I'm for Clinton and I'm not that confident. I think she has a good chance of winning, but I know it'll be close. Luckily for me, Bernie is my 2nd choice for candidates so I kind of win either way. I dunno exactly what I'd do with my Presidential vote. Thanks to the jungle primary system, I can vote for whoever I want in the first round, and then hopefully choose between a left candidate and a Republican. I might throw a vote for the Greens if it's Hillary vs. Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Jan 31, 2016 1:34:36 GMT
I'm for Clinton and I'm not that confident. I think she has a good chance of winning, but I know it'll be close. Luckily for me, Bernie is my 2nd choice for candidates so I kind of win either way. I dunno exactly what I'd do with my Presidential vote. Thanks to the jungle primary system, I can vote for whoever I want in the first round, and then hopefully choose between a left candidate and a Republican. I might throw a vote for the Greens if it's Hillary vs. Trump. What state has a (2 round) jungle primary for presidential nominations or elections?
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Jan 31, 2016 1:48:41 GMT
I dunno exactly what I'd do with my Presidential vote. Thanks to the jungle primary system, I can vote for whoever I want in the first round, and then hopefully choose between a left candidate and a Republican. I might throw a vote for the Greens if it's Hillary vs. Trump. What state has a (2 round) jungle primary for presidential nominations or elections? California has it for everything but the President. So I usually vote Greens in the 1st round and Dems in the 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Jan 31, 2016 4:25:37 GMT
Looking at the polling, only one poll has Trump at less than 5%, the rest is between 5-10%, so I feel pretty comfortable saying he's going to win. Little closer than I'd like, but New Hampshire and South Carolina are in the bag for sure, so it doesn't matter really.
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Jan 31, 2016 5:27:28 GMT
Looking at the polling, only one poll has Trump at less than 5%, the rest is between 5-10%, so I feel pretty comfortable saying he's going to win. Little closer than I'd like, but New Hampshire and South Carolina are in the bag for sure, so it doesn't matter really. In the bag for who?
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Jan 31, 2016 6:09:08 GMT
Other states can shift greatly based on results of prior states so saying New Hampshire and South Carolina are locked up is premature, especially on the Republican side with its crowded field. Trump could take a significant hit if he loses Iowa.
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Jan 31, 2016 6:42:08 GMT
Other states can shift greatly based on results of prior states so saying New Hampshire and South Carolina are locked up is premature, especially on the Republican side with its crowded field. Trump could take a significant hit if he loses Iowa. That's a big "if". The other GOP candidates seem to be implicitly conceding the state to him.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Jan 31, 2016 7:05:50 GMT
Looking at the polling, only one poll has Trump at less than 5%, the rest is between 5-10%, so I feel pretty comfortable saying he's going to win. Little closer than I'd like, but New Hampshire and South Carolina are in the bag for sure, so it doesn't matter really. In the bag for who? Sorry, I did make that sound pretty vague in retrospect. Trump is who I was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Feb 1, 2016 2:34:21 GMT
I don't think SC is in the bag. A bunch of people are fighting here, particularly the Religious Rightists. (BTW, there will be a candidate forum at Bob Jones University coming soon.)
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Feb 1, 2016 3:49:35 GMT
Well, at long last, the votes will be cast tomorrow. Bloomberg has Trump up by an absurd amount in New Hampshire, so a double victory may make him unbeatable.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Feb 1, 2016 3:50:29 GMT
I don't think SC is in the bag. A bunch of people are fighting here, particularly the Religious Rightists. (BTW, there will be a candidate forum at Bob Jones University coming soon.) The last three polls had Trump with a double digit lead, with the next to last having him almost reaching a 20% lead. As well, outside of Iowa, us Social Conservatives/Religious Right types have pretty much rallied around Trump as multiple news outlets have reported on.
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Feb 1, 2016 4:01:17 GMT
I don't think SC is in the bag. A bunch of people are fighting here, particularly the Religious Rightists. (BTW, there will be a candidate forum at Bob Jones University coming soon.) The last three polls had Trump with a double digit lead, with the next to last having him almost reaching a 20% lead. As well, outside of Iowa, us Social Conservatives/Religious Right types have pretty much rallied around Trump as multiple news outlets have reported on. And Newt came from being left for dead after Iowa to winning South Carolina last cycle. Sure Trump would win South Carolina if they voted today. But they aren't, lots could happen.
|
|
|
Post by Epic History on Feb 1, 2016 6:54:51 GMT
The last three polls had Trump with a double digit lead, with the next to last having him almost reaching a 20% lead. As well, outside of Iowa, us Social Conservatives/Religious Right types have pretty much rallied around Trump as multiple news outlets have reported on. And Newt came from being left for dead after Iowa to winning South Carolina last cycle. Sure Trump would win South Carolina if they voted today. But they aren't, lots could happen. You seem to forget that Gingrich was ahead in the polls in South Carolina, both before and after Iowa. Which is exactly like Trump this go, except for that fact Trump has consistently maintain an even larger lead. Plus, it can't be stated enough that traditional measures have been completely busted by Trump so far this election anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Feb 1, 2016 23:31:57 GMT
And Newt came from being left for dead after Iowa to winning South Carolina last cycle. Sure Trump would win South Carolina if they voted today. But they aren't, lots could happen. You seem to forget that Gingrich was ahead in the polls in South Carolina, both before and after Iowa. Which is exactly like Trump this go, except for that fact Trump has consistently maintain an even larger lead. Plus, it can't be stated enough that traditional measures have been completely busted by Trump so far this election anyway. Except that they link you gave shows Newt significantly losing the lead 2 days after Iowa and not getting it back until 2 days before South Carolina. In any case the point remains that there's still plenty of time for movement in a crowded race.
|
|
|
Post by AYC on Feb 1, 2016 23:49:04 GMT
Counting of the votes starts in a few hours. We should have the results by around 22:00 or 23:00 CST.
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Feb 2, 2016 0:14:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Feb 2, 2016 2:04:38 GMT
Iowa doesn't look like it'd feeling the Bern.
Cruz/Trump might not be called til late.
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Feb 2, 2016 2:49:39 GMT
The Bern not giving up. Cruz maintaining consistent lead, Rubio exceeding expectations.
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Feb 2, 2016 3:07:30 GMT
O'Malley just ended his campaign, per AP news sources. Per CNN, Huckabee is too. Cruz gets the Republican nod. The three Republican leaders are Cruz, Trump and Rubio. All else are below 20%. Clinton and Sanders are VERY close.
|
|