Democratic caucuses and primaries

d4m10n said:
Hillary Clinton can claim that winning the popular vote was a moral victory, if she likes, but it's not *really* a win, and we all know it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in this case, it's perceptions and "momentum" that matter more than the actual number of delegates, because the process has barely begun. There's still a long road ahead and 24 delegates is only a drop in the bucket.
 
d4m10n said:
Hillary Clinton can claim that winning the popular vote was a moral victory, if she likes, but it's not *really* a win, and we all know it.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

From a strategic perspective, it makes no sense to do anything other than claim a victory. The New Hampshire primary is not the end.

Claiming victory and truthfully being able to point to higher numbers of voters mean you set yourself up as the leader for Nevada where Sanders is already the front-runner.

This is different from the Hillary Clinton example where she simply lost, and where her loss was the end of the road. Claiming victory would have been delusional, and nothing more.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm seeing a lot of headlines reporting NH as a win for Sanders, even though he seems unlikely to net more delegates than the next guy.

Seems weird to call that a victory, rather than a tie, given the stated rules of the overall contest.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There's reality, and there's headlines.


You don't get eyeballs on your news channel with headlines that say, "It's a Tie in a Small State That Barely Matters"

Media coverage of primaries is more like sports than anything else, and in sports, people want to be able to declare a winner.
 
These states matter for defining the later races. Numerically significant or not, they are first and perceptions matter.

Sanders, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar (to a lesser extent) have emerged as front runners, everyone else is looking like a loser. Primary voters may treat voting for Biden, Warren, or the others as throwing their votes away. I expect the vote totals to start coalescing around the 3 viable candidates unless some major turnaround happens.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
These states matter for defining the later races. Numerically significant or not, they are first and perceptions matter.

Sanders, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar (to a lesser extent) have emerged as front runners, everyone else is looking like a loser. Primary voters may treat voting for Biden, Warren, or the others as throwing their votes away. I expect the vote totals to start coalescing around the 3 viable candidates unless some major turnaround happens.
Click to expand...

At this rate, it will probably be worse for Sanders if Biden drops out.
 
angrysoba said:
At this rate, it will probably be worse for Sanders if Biden drops out.
Click to expand...

Have to agree. Sanders has benefited on the inability of the centrist wing to select a candidate and stop splitting their votes. It doesn't help that neither of the viable candidates for this lane seem particularly strong.

As a Bernie supporter, I hope the moderate wing jockeying continues on for some time. Unless Pete or Klobuchar really work some magic, SC will not solidify either of them as the moderate candidate and a strong-ish finish for Biden will just throw their camp back into disarray.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I have no doubt that Trump will challenge the validity of the general election should he lose. The question will be how far will he go?
Click to expand...

As noted he's still challenging the validity of the election he won.

He still pretends he won the popular vote and that his win was actually a lot bigger then it was because of dirty illegal forced busing immigrant voting.
 
Dem primaries are turning out much more interesting than I expected.
 
Meadmaker said:
There's reality, and there's headlines.

You don't get eyeballs on your news channel with headlines that say, "It's a Tie in a Small State That Barely Matters"

Media coverage of primaries is more like sports than anything else, and in sports, people want to be able to declare a winner.
Click to expand...

In other words, there are systemic rewards in place which incentivize sensational first-past-the-post style coverage even when those doing the reporting know full well the result is a tie on the points which actually matter, that is, pledged delegates. My point was (and remains) that as skeptics we should be promoting a more factual and grounded approach.

ahhell said:
Dem primaries are turning out much more interesting than I expected.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Here are my takeaways so far:

  1. Moderate and centrist Dems are around twice as numerous as Democratic Socialists and their fellow travelers, but the latter group have mostly coalesced around a single candidate
  2. The odds of a contested convention have been creeping up steadily, which is horrifying fascinating
  3. With essentially two ties in a row, Nevada has become more important than ever before
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
In other words, there are systemic rewards in place which incentivize sensational first-past-the-post style coverage even when those doing the reporting know full well the result is a tie on the points that actually matter, that is, pledged delegates. My point was (and remains) that as skeptics we should be promoting a more factual and grounded approach.
Click to expand...

It is factual and grounded to acknowledge that the staggered timetable of the elections means that early victories and losses change perceptions and influence voting decisions.
 
As soon as a candidate and/or their supporters who won Iowa/New Hampshire / Super Tuesday goes "Shrug LOL doesn't matter" I'll listen.

It's just a sub-genre of the "Polls don't matter when your guy is losing, they do when he is winning" tactic.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It is factual and grounded to acknowledge that the staggered timetable of the elections means that early victories and losses change perceptions and influence voting decisions.
Click to expand...

Because of the breathless horse race coverage (the sort which treats ties as wins) or because of solid and rational reasons?

SuburbanTurkey said:
As a Bernie supporter, I hope the moderate wing jockeying continues on for some time. Unless Pete or Klobuchar really work some magic, SC will not solidify either of them as the moderate candidate and a strong-ish finish for Biden will just throw their camp back into disarray.
Click to expand...

You'd prefer an anti-majoritarian outcome?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom