According to CNN, Hillary got 1,308 votes in the Virgin Island caucuses yesterday, or 84.2%, while Bernie received 190 votes, 12.2%. Hillary got all 7 of the Virgin Islands' pledged delegates. 2 of their 5 superdelegates are supporting Hillary and none are supporting Bernie.
If Bernie had gotten 84% of the vote and all of the pledged delegates, he and his supporters would be saying that it proved that he is the stronger candidate and that Hillary should withdraw for the sake of the Democratic Party. They'd say things like: "85% percent of all the Americans who voted yesterday agree that Bernie is the candidate who should face Trump! Clinton is defying the will of 85% of the American people!" and so forth. As it is, if they noticed that there were caucuses in the Virgin Islands yesterday and that Hillary handed Bernie his ass, they will say that it shows how the system is rigged and that caucuses are undemocratic and that Hillary and all the other Democratic insiders are corrupt and that Hillary is a corporate thug and history's greatest monster, and so forth.
I'm so sick of Bernie. I can't imagine that Hillary would ever pick him as her VP, but what do I know. Apparently she hates Barack, or at the very least she did back in 2008, and she's made nice with him for public view, and maybe more than just for public view, what do I know. Maybe the ability to stomach someone like Bernie is an example of why Hillary is a great politician and I am not.
The fantasy-land Bernie and his supporters are living in by continuing his ever more farcical campaign fits with his political career. Remember, he's only been in the Democratic Party for about a year. He only joined because he knew he could make more of a splash with his campaign by using the Democratic Party than if he campaigned as an independent. But he hasn't shown signs of wanting to return the favor and be of use to the party.
What's really strange about him having called himself a Socialist instead of a Democrat until he decided to use the Democratic Party for this Presidential run is that none of his positions were ever to the Left of what could be found within the Democratic Party. It appears that he was an independent and a self-described Socialist (the only Socialist I've ever heard of with no affiliation to any Socialist party) in order to feel special without being special.
Just as in this campaign he wants things which aren't his, and hallucinates that he has them: the will of the American people, a strong mandate, the lion's share of the votes and the delegates if one corrects for all the ways in which he's been cheated. It's all just daydreaming, and I'm sick of it. Politics is very serious, and it calls for people in touch with facts.
We can't judge how widespread his support continues to be just from all the noise made by all of his reality-challenged supporters who make noise at his rallies and on the talking-head news shows, because we don't know how big that bloc of hard-core supporters has ever been compared to the group of all the people who have voted for him. The polls in California are all over the place: some say the primary on Tuesday will be very close, some say that Hillary is way out in front.
And so many mainstream media outlets continue to report on only the polls which say it's close, and to ignore the ones saying it will be a blowout for Hillary. Why do so many of them keep ignoring the polls showing Hillary with a lopsided lead? That's so strange. I'm sick of that, too, frankly, as should any reality-based person be. Some of the press tell us that Bernie's campaign is running out of money. That would seem to indicate that he's running out of support. Perhaps because a significant number of his former supporters are significantly more reality-based than he is, and are tired of this farce?
Well. We'll see what we see today in Puerto Rico and on Tuesday in New Jersey, North Dakoto, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico and California on Tuesday.
That is to say: some of us will see what we see, and those who only see what they want to see will continue to see only what they want to see, whether that's massive popular support for Bernie or massive corruption and rigging behind Hillary, or whatever it is they want to see. What actually happens won't matter to them. It hasn't so far, there's no reason for that to change.
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Thursday, September 6, 2012
...and maybe 400
At ElectoralVote.com they have a Rasmussen-free electoral-vote map which shows 332 electoral votes going for Obama and 206 for Romney. But they consider only 138 of those electoral votes to be "solidly" for Romney. Six states are only pink instead of red, and a seventh, North Cackalacky Its Dangself, is only outlined in pink. Seven states where Romney's lead is less than lead-pipe-cinch certain. If Obama takes all the blue states on that map plus those seven he will have a nice round 400 electoral votes. In my opinion Missouri and and Arizona should be pink too, so make it 421.
What? All the "experts" are doing this all the time, except in the opposite direction, talking about how Romney could win if he won in all the red and pinks state plus every state that isn't dark blue. All except for Nate Silver at the New Times' 538.com. Everybody calls him a genius. But none of the other pundits seem to listen to him, let alone benefit from his good sense. Nope. It's just Nate and me, all alone in a sea of rubes.
Will 421 be enough for all of you people out there to stand up to those of your friends, families and neighbors who have embraced the bagger/birther/everything's-Obama-fault horseshit, and firmly tell them that they are stupid and that enough's enough and it's time for them to listen to the grownups and the brighter ones among the children? Would 421 give you balls enough to talk sense right out in public?
It's not enough for Obama to win. They have to really, really lose, once and for all.
What? All the "experts" are doing this all the time, except in the opposite direction, talking about how Romney could win if he won in all the red and pinks state plus every state that isn't dark blue. All except for Nate Silver at the New Times' 538.com. Everybody calls him a genius. But none of the other pundits seem to listen to him, let alone benefit from his good sense. Nope. It's just Nate and me, all alone in a sea of rubes.
Will 421 be enough for all of you people out there to stand up to those of your friends, families and neighbors who have embraced the bagger/birther/everything's-Obama-fault horseshit, and firmly tell them that they are stupid and that enough's enough and it's time for them to listen to the grownups and the brighter ones among the children? Would 421 give you balls enough to talk sense right out in public?
It's not enough for Obama to win. They have to really, really lose, once and for all.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
350+
Is how many electoral votes Obama will take on November 6. Take that to the bank. Bet the farm.
There seem to be very few "experts" on the subject who can see that Obama is way ahead of Romney.
Okay, for one thing, is it really so hard to see that nationwide polls are completely useless in predicting an election which will be decided by electoral vote? These news stories claiming that the race is close keep pointing to nationwide polls and ignoring state-by-state polls. That kind of story defines the term "useless" about as well as anything I can think of. Not one electoral-vote projection based on current polling shows Romney ahead -- Huffington Post's Speculatron electoral-vote map is based on what Speculatron Boy has pulled out of his butt -- and some show Obama with as many as 332 electoral votes. The latter seem like the most sensible projections to me. I think there's widespread bias and/or incompetence among the "experts" who are calling this thing close.
Romney didn't get a bounce from the RNC convention. This doesn't surprise me. I know, my claim of not having anticipated a bump would have been much more impressive if I had posted it before the Republican convention. It seems to have surprised a lot of "experts," but don't expect a lot of articles and editorials with headlines like "OK, WE'RE IDIOTS!" Idiots can't admit to themselves that they're idiots. This is one of the reasons they stay idiots.
The "experts" predicted small post-convention bumps for both Romney and Obama. I'm predicting a big bump for Obama, big enough that the projection of 332 electoral votes will have to be adjusted upward. Maybe much higher.
And I predict that after Obama's big post-convention bump, the "experts" will continue to find a way to claim that this thing is close. I predict that they will predict that the bump will melt away quickly. I predict it won't.
Why are the predictions of the "experts" so far off, and why will they continue to be? I don't know. Straight-up stupidity, maybe. Maybe they don't care whether people will look at their performance as prognosticators when considering in the future to hire them.
Maybe there's some grand conspiracy here which would be easier for me to see if I were neurologically-typical. Anyway, what I'm predicting is that enough voters will be able to see the difference between a highly-intelligent centrist powerfully motivated to do the country good, and a pathological liar who chose another pathological liar as his running mate, and the difference between a campaign based on good ideas and one based on lies and irrational fear, to make this thing lopsided. Maybe more like 380 than 350.
There seem to be very few "experts" on the subject who can see that Obama is way ahead of Romney.
Okay, for one thing, is it really so hard to see that nationwide polls are completely useless in predicting an election which will be decided by electoral vote? These news stories claiming that the race is close keep pointing to nationwide polls and ignoring state-by-state polls. That kind of story defines the term "useless" about as well as anything I can think of. Not one electoral-vote projection based on current polling shows Romney ahead -- Huffington Post's Speculatron electoral-vote map is based on what Speculatron Boy has pulled out of his butt -- and some show Obama with as many as 332 electoral votes. The latter seem like the most sensible projections to me. I think there's widespread bias and/or incompetence among the "experts" who are calling this thing close.
Romney didn't get a bounce from the RNC convention. This doesn't surprise me. I know, my claim of not having anticipated a bump would have been much more impressive if I had posted it before the Republican convention. It seems to have surprised a lot of "experts," but don't expect a lot of articles and editorials with headlines like "OK, WE'RE IDIOTS!" Idiots can't admit to themselves that they're idiots. This is one of the reasons they stay idiots.
The "experts" predicted small post-convention bumps for both Romney and Obama. I'm predicting a big bump for Obama, big enough that the projection of 332 electoral votes will have to be adjusted upward. Maybe much higher.
And I predict that after Obama's big post-convention bump, the "experts" will continue to find a way to claim that this thing is close. I predict that they will predict that the bump will melt away quickly. I predict it won't.
Why are the predictions of the "experts" so far off, and why will they continue to be? I don't know. Straight-up stupidity, maybe. Maybe they don't care whether people will look at their performance as prognosticators when considering in the future to hire them.
Maybe there's some grand conspiracy here which would be easier for me to see if I were neurologically-typical. Anyway, what I'm predicting is that enough voters will be able to see the difference between a highly-intelligent centrist powerfully motivated to do the country good, and a pathological liar who chose another pathological liar as his running mate, and the difference between a campaign based on good ideas and one based on lies and irrational fear, to make this thing lopsided. Maybe more like 380 than 350.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)