I'll give the liberal mainstream media a little credit for properly characterizing the Demo contest in Iowa...
Team Hillary of course is claiming a landslide victory, but it's a statistical tie, and for the most part that is how the media is reporting it...at least on this occasion, they're not sucking up to her spin...
She's not getting credit for a "win" here, nor should she...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lord Jim wrote:I'll give the liberal mainstream media a little credit for properly characterizing the Demo contest in Iowa...
Team Hillary of course is claiming a landslide victory, but it's a statistical tie, and for the most part that is how the media is reporting it...at least on this occasion, they're not sucking up to her spin...
She's not getting credit for a "win" here, nor should she...
Given how much big money and how many big endorsements she has over Sanders, this is a loss in my book. She seemed deflated last night when she began speaking and no wonder why.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Let's not kid ourselves: Bernie did very well last night and he will likely win handily in New Hampshire next week. But he will lose in South Carolina and Nevada later this month, and is going to get murdered on Super Tuesday. After that, he would have to crush it in MI, FL, IL, NC and OH just to still be competitive by April, and I just don't see that happening. And in any event, my bet is that Hillary will have picked up enough delegates by the end of April to make the late primaries (even California) virtually irrelevant. Barring some kind of disaster befalling the Clinton campaign, I think she is pretty inevitable.
She seemed deflated last night when she began speaking and no wonder why.
It may have something to do with this...:
Bernie Sanders raises $20 million in January
Bernie Sanders' campaign announced Sunday that it had raised $20 million this month — an enormous haul as the Vermont senator seeks to demonstrate he's prepared for a protracted battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Campaign aides say more than 770,000 individual contributions poured in over the course of January, pushing the total number of Sanders' donations past the 3.2 million mark, a milestone not seen before at this stage in presidential campaigns. Sanders' campaign said almost none of its donors had hit the $2,700 cap on what they could donate for the primary elections, allowing these donors to replenish his fundraising accounts in the months ahead.
The January total means Sanders' fundraising pace has increased dramatically from the last three months of last year when he raised nearly $33.6 million to Clinton's $37 million.
He has repeatedly said he is in until the convention, and he may well be. Even if he is not the nominee, he will move the conversation to topics Hillary would rather not address--and that is a good thing IMHO.
Big RR wrote:He has repeatedly said he is in until the convention, and he may well be. Even if he is not the nominee, he will move the conversation to topics Hillary would rather not address--and that is a good thing IMHO.
I think that's really the best that he'd be able to do. The fund-raising is good, and because it's all from small donors it's also a good bet that they can be hit up again and again, but their enthusiasm will wane if he's not winning states or at least keeping up in the delegate count.
Could be, but I'd be willing to kick in some to keep the conversation going, and I'd bet others would as well. Otherwise, the campaign will be to court the center because "where else will those on the left go?"--the democratic party post-Bill Clinton (or at least 1996 Bill Clinton).
oldr_n_wsr wrote:What's the difference between a "polls-only" forecast and a "polls-plus" forecast?
no, I didn't go to the link
From the link:
As I mentioned, we’re running two separate (although related) forecasts this year that we call polls-only and polls-plus:
The polls-only model is based only on polls from a particular state;1 for example, only polls of New Hampshire are used in the New Hampshire forecast.
The polls-plus model is based on state polls, national polls and endorsements. (National polls are used in a slightly unusual way; they’re a contrarian indicator. More about that later.) The polls-plus model also seeks to account for how the projected results in Iowa could affect the results in New Hampshire and how the results in those states could affect the results in subsequent contests.
In theory, the polls-plus model should be more accurate than the polls-only model, but it’s a pretty small difference; in our backtesting, polls-plus was more accurate at predicting a candidate’s actual result 57 percent of the time, while polls-only was more accurate 43 percent of the time. That’s something, but there are plenty of times when the polls-only model will give the more accurate answer. Therefore, we think the models are more useful when looked at together.
Big RR wrote:He has repeatedly said he is in until the convention, and he may well be. Even if he is not the nominee, he will move the conversation to topics Hillary would rather not address--and that is a good thing IMHO.
I don't think that conversation is all that enlightening if it is just between likely Democratic voters, more so if the GOP voters were engaged but that would only happen if -ay caramba!-
But seriously, the Dems need to move back to the left from the right of center position they have held on tax and economic policy since Clinton the first and if this shows them how much untapped support there is from "Bernie Voters" perhaps that can happen. Also, "Bernie voters" are younger and represent the future if their energy can be pulled in for the long haul. College graduates in their 20s and 30s now will be the business, academic and professional leaders of the future..
Clinton is already winning. She needs to shift strategy and focus on winning in a way that captures the energy and support of Bernie's voters. The youth vote was key for Obama.
the Dems need to move back to the left from the right of center position they have held on tax and economic policy
As I've explained to you on numerous occasions rube, anytime you want to send the federal government a check to make an additional payment for what you'd like to pay, the government will be more than happy to accept your payment...
Enlightening rubato? No, I agree it is not all that enlightening; but the conversation does force Hillary (and other dems) to take positions on things they'd rather not address--which is good IMHO. and the move to the left that I agree should happen, will not happen unless the candidates are forced to address these issues.
