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

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?

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"

I don't know if this is what happened, but on our media sites, you can change the headline all you want, but the "slug" - the URL - remains what it was when it was created. You could change the slug, but you'd also erase whatever hits you were already getting from that link, and you'd kill any links that someone might've shared on Facebook or ILX.

If you were to go through my website's pages, you'd see a lot of typos and best-restaurants-of-2013's in the slugs, even though the headlines would be different.

do they track people's browser history to determine which headline appears on that article?

on my laptop it reads "Bernie Sanders Acclaims Arch/Matheos Album: 'It's Easily As Good As Anything By Fates Warning, I'll Fight You Assholes About This"

kind of...

http://fusion.net/story/268108/dstillery-clever-tracking-trick/

“This is roughly equivalent to exit polling for the smart phone age.”

A rather amazing throwback to 2008, via Greenwald

In what appear to be the New York senator's most blunt comments to date regarding a racial division in the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton suggested Wednesday that "White Americans" are increasingly turning away from Barack Obama’s candidacy.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," Clinton said in an interview with USA TODAY.

Clinton cited an Associated Press poll "that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

...Speaking with the paper, Clinton rejected the notion her comments were racially divisive in any way.

"These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election," she said. "Everybody knows that."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-support-from-white-americans/

^^^ 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.

― its subtle brume (DJP), Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:09 AM (1 hour ago)

it was probably always wishful thinking that sanders would have enough time to cut into hillary's lead among black voters. presumably her biggest advantage are her ties to obama, and that's just not going to disappear

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/11/how-rove-fought-with-fox-over-ohio.html?mid=twitter_dailyintel

Here is it, roughly the quote I sorta remembered:

With neither side backing down, senior producers had to find a way to split the difference. One idea was for two members of the decision team, Mishkin and Fox's digital politics editor Chris Stirewalt, to go on camera with Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier to squelch the doubts over the call. But then it was decided that Kelly would walk through the office and interview the decision team in the conference room. “This is Fox News,” an insider said, “so anytime there’s a chance to show off Megyn Kelly’s legs they’ll go for it.” The decision desk were given a three-minute warning that Kelly would be showing up.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is a reason why they position their blonde newsreader replicants on the side of any desk or chat panel

i say "presumably" because i haven't really seen a political science type dive into the reason for that firewall -- just continual references to its existence xp

my apologies for interrupting your discussion, but this cultural appropriation by the marco rubio team needs to be disseminated:

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2016/02/15/vancouver-skyline-featured-in-marco-rubios-morning-again-in-america-campaign-ad/

it's morning again in america. the canadian america, that is!

the bit of a "Morning Joe" segment I caught this morning mentioned HRC's interest in the white vote: Reagan Democrats "returning home" or something.

xp hahaha, guy can't catch a break

Maybe they thought it was Vancouver, WA?

from the new PPP poll out of SC:

Trump's support in South Carolina is built on a base of voters among whom religious and racial intolerance pervades. Among the beliefs of his supporters:

-70% think the Confederate flag should still be flying over the State Capital, to only 20% who agree with it being taken down. In fact 38% of Trump voters say they wish the South had won the Civil War to only 24% glad the North won and 38% who aren't sure. Overall just 36% of Republican primary voters in the state are glad the North emerged victorious to 30% for the South, but Trump's the only one whose supporters actually wish the South had won.

-By an 80/9 spread, Trump voters support his proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States. In fact 31% would support a ban on homosexuals entering the United States as well, something no more than 17% of anyone else's voters think is a good idea. There's also 62/23 support among Trump voters for creating a national database of Muslims and 40/36 support for shutting down all the mosques in the United States, something no one else's voters back. Only 44% of Trump voters think the practice of Islam should even be legal at all in the United States, to 33% who think it should be illegal. To put all the views toward Muslims in context though, 32% of Trump voters continue to believe the policy of Japanese internment during World War II was a good one, compared to only 33% who oppose it and 35% who have no opinion one way or another.

I had no idea Trump's supporters were completely insane morons

Get some of these folks to pontificate on camera (and you know they'd love to) and you have your readymade ad for people who are on the fence about Trump, for good or ill.

In fact 38% of Trump voters say they wish the South had won the Civil War to only 24% glad the North won and 38% who aren't sure.

lol at those who "aren't sure"

the 38 percent who think the South and North should've joined forces to drive Maximilian from Mexico.

lol at those who "aren't sure"

tbf they aren't sure who won