I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

Think I've only seen Rove on TV once this cycle, months ago.

Trump called Cruz unhinged today. I'll use that as an excuse for an Angry Samoans YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL_1BrblQkI

not strictly an election night concession speech but i did go to hillary's 2008 speech at the nat'l building museum when she suspended her campaign and honestly it was pretty emotional in person, that was the speech talking about the highest glass ceiling and how at least now there were 18 million cracks in it.

about turnout this year.. i've read some dem folks on twitters noting that there's cause for concern that turnout on the dem side so far in the primaries is underperforming 2008, while GOP turnout is higher. idk if it's all because of the trump show, or how long it will last. obama actually did find new voters and get them to show up but so far clinton and sanders, not so much

ted kennedy 1980 comes to mind, where at the end of it you really are way more interested in voting for the guy who just conceded.

the 2012 aftermath was one of the greatest things to witness. It was the greatest example of trying to force a narrative I'd ever seen. Romney won that first debate and the narrative amongst his fanbase was that he was his race to lose, even if it would still be tight.

It was just kinda funny that the thing most of us knew was going to happen happened exactly as stated, but the purveyors of strange conservative math were dumbfounded. notorious right-biased Gallup, in the weeks leading up to the election, actually forecasted a Romney victory based on the 'likely states' (even as the forecast had started to shift more comfortably towards Obama in most other forecasts).

A friend of mine got invited to a "Free at Last" party which the sole purpose was to celebrate Romney's victory live (I'm still regretting not crashing that thing). People like that clown Wayne Allyn Root were predicting a 'landslide' for Mitt, and naturally he wrote a pretty pathetic follow-up article blaming America for being guilty of stockholm syndrome. The National Review also took a beating after Silver was vindicated, since Jordan had invested so much in tarring him as 'partisan' and trying to shift the election.

I also remember several twitter debates where Nate Silver was called a hack, and to be fair, he'd just gotten 2008's election right, but had done less convincingly in the 2010 mid-terms, which they were hinging on. It was just this group of conservatives adamant that the numbers crunched were wrong, and that the numbers they had manipulated more favorably for themselves were right.

I remember some conservatives whining that it was the unexpected turnout of certain minorities etc that swung the election, but even that was predicted by Silver and his peers (twas another area that Gallup wildly whiffed, iirc)

xpost i dunno, i feel like a 6 or 10-way race is just inherently more interesting. plus more of a "my vote will matter" factor. that's setting aside that each of those candidates might have some stable of voters they're really bringing in the door, who aren't showing up otherwise.

lol @ the "free at last" party. that could have been beautiful, or gotten really ugly really fast, i dunno.

there's cause for concern that turnout on the dem side so far in the primaries is underperforming 2008, while GOP turnout is higher.

yeah :-/

W.'s on CNN stumping for his brother right now--supposedly the first time he's stepped out the house since 2008 or something.

xxxpost sorry for HuffPo link, but I never actually saw this at the time it got posted - they replied about their failures publicly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/gallup-poll-2012_n_3384882.html

W.'s on CNN stumping for his brother right now--supposedly the first time he's stepped out the house since 2008 or something.

― clemenza, Monday, February 15, 2016 6:12 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

waiting for him to crumble to his knees in a "prophetic vision from God"

Lindsay Graham actually just made me laugh: "If you wanted to take money out of politics, you should have joined my campaign...'cause we ran out of money."

"I don't know about you, but I like bushes!"

oh lindseypaws

fuck i can't watch this motherfucker talk, i can't do it

(dubya i mean, not graham)

we're in the era where we can't tell political quotes apart from whatever the dudes handing out strip club flyers on the vegas strip are saying at 2 AM

conservatives whining that it was the unexpected turnout of certain minorities etc that swung the election

they did work pretty hard to suppress the vote by passing all those voter id laws. so unfair for them that people showed up and voted

kinda wondering what the best concession speeches of all time are

I remember McCain 2008 as being good but I can't remember much about it now

I know W. wants to remove himself from politics, but I don't see the point in hauling him out there unless he goes after Trump much more specifically than he did.

xp. yeah, he was quite gracious and dignified. also did about as good a job as possible to try and soothe his outrage, agitated, butthurt crowd

so it was the Preparation H of concessions

let's not forget Trump's nugget from 2012:

http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election//

McCain's concession speech was lovely until he lectured the country, reminding them that the election of a black president means he'll tolerate no more whining about racism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bss6lTP8BJ8

the upside to a Trump candidacy is that when he inevitably loses he'll probably pull some attention-whore shit like dying Harry Einstein-style in the middle of his concession speech

Graham is v reliably entertaining

Xxp

CNN not surprisingly fawning over how pointed W.'s speech was. It wasn't, not at all. I mean, the references were obvious enough, but that was the bare minimum you'd expect.

to be fair he worked really...really hard on it

re: the Karl/Kelly show, I loved the "Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?" line, which I don't think was in the linked clip. It was pretty much the highlight of the night for me

So why had Megyn Kelley (and Friends) rehearsed her walking from the studio down to the stats bullpen in the first place?

MEGYN: You know what would be funny? What if I walked down to the number crunchers to prove Karl wrong?

PRODUCER: Well, ok. Guess we'll let him and Chris talk for another 20 minutes while we practice.

they probably had rehearsed a "visit" with their election-numbers folks in case they needed to fill some air time, but didn't expect it to happen in that precise circumstance.

yeah i think that's right. like for something much earlier in the evening, or if the exciting states were all taking forever to report results so there wasn't much happening.

Lol no comment

(in general)

if only that were true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M

xpost i dunno, i feel like a 6 or 10-way race is just inherently more interesting. plus more of a "my vote will matter" factor. that's setting aside that each of those candidates might have some stable of voters they're really bringing in the door, who aren't showing up otherwise.

― shandemonium padawan (Doctor Casino), Monday, February 15, 2016 5:10 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this seems right to me. trump factor has to be accounted 4 imo. he's going to bring out some independents. if he is the nominee, bet a lot of republicans are staying home. if he's not, a lot of trump fans staying home. or voting bernie. idk.

or in other words exactly what u said but with trump as the dude

http://i.imgur.com/FxQqv1S.jpg

Lol no comment.

I like Rove's assertion at the end that his only worry was about whether it's responsible to call a victory when the basis for the call isn't entirely transparent to ordinary Americans. As if such a feeble point would have been worth arguing for 20 minutes.

pplains you are still my hero for those btw

I just remember an even-creepier-than-normal anecdote about the director of Fox News that night deliberately shooting Kelly full-body and holding on her for her entire walk there & back because "we hired her for her legs" or somesuch.

I like Rove's assertion at the end that his only worry was about whether it's responsible to call a victory when the basis for the call isn't entirely transparent to ordinary Americans.

Yeah it was such a transparent case of having a mini-tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted and then trying to cover it up with "No, I mean, I was just sayin', because ..."

Even in its petulance, it was pretty much the most human, relatable moment I've ever seen from Karl Rove.

ughhh that's bad (re: kingfish's post) and makes me feel even more shameful about my ws comment above. can i retract that for the good of the board?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-maintains-national-lead-over-sanders-after-n-h-loss-n519076?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=74dad12a7328053bcbe3b88eefc60879

^^^ This goes back to my original point of several months ago re: "Sanders needs to introduce himself to black people if he wants their votes"; I thought he had been based on the articles that have been circulating among my Facebook Berniebot friends, forgetting that 90% of them are white and are only looking at what other white people are doing. I'd like to see some other polling around this to confirm/debunk the thesis.

do they track people's browser history to determine which headline appears on that article? because the URL says "clinton-maintains-national-lead-over-sanders-after-n-h-loss" but the headline for me says "Bernie Sanders Closes Gap on Hillary Clinton After N.H. Win: Poll"

uh that is odd

Hillary's people haven't gotten around to rewriting the article yet

ok now the headline matches the URL. weird!

Perhaps they concluded a one-percent shift isn't statistically significant?