WWTBAM Bored

I mean, trotting out Chelsea to attack Bernie on health care? Really?

The latest polls must be even worse than I'm seeing. That aura of invincibility must be wearing thin again. Wonder when the news media will start to acknowledge it?

We've had 5 AP and NYT stories in the past day or two, like this one.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/p ... 33445.html

mrkelley23 wrote:I mean, trotting out Chelsea to attack Bernie on health care? Really?

The latest polls must be even worse than I'm seeing. That aura of invincibility must be wearing thin again. Wonder when the news media will start to acknowledge it?

The last e-mail I got from Hillary's campaign was fairly blunt: Do I want to see Donald Trump or Ted Cruz deliver the next State of the Union address?

The next Democratic debate promises to be tougher, although you still won't see them talking about e-mails, Benghazi, or Bill Clinton's affairs. You will see Bernie hit Hillary on her Wall Street ties and Hillary go after Bernie's foreign policy softness.

Iowa is tough to predict because the rules there are so strange, especially for the Democrats. Instead of being in and out of a polling place in five minutes like I was in the Georgia primary, you have to stand around for a couple of hours or more while interest groups try to lobby voters into gathering with one candidate's group or another. It's the opposite of the secret ballot and there can be a snowball effect, especially where you have essentially only two candidates, some who start out with the loser may defect during the course of the evening, and 55-45 can easily become 70-30.

silverscreenselect wrote: Iowa is tough to predict because the rules there are so strange, especially for the Democrats. Instead of being in and out of a polling place in five minutes like I was in the Georgia primary, you have to stand around for a couple of hours or more while interest groups try to lobby voters into gathering with one candidate's group or another. It's the opposite of the secret ballot and there can be a snowball effect, especially where you have essentially only two candidates, some who start out with the loser may defect during the course of the evening, and 55-45 can easily become 70-30.

This was on The Good Wife the other night. Pretty funny.

This site has an illustration of the rules in effect for this year's Iowa caucuses. The Republican caucus is fairly much like a traditional primary followed by an election of delegates from the precinct to the county convention which is held later. They sometimes also vote on various resolutions as well, and the entire process takes about an hour. Although the participants at each level of the caucus choose the delegates to the next level (county/state/national), Iowa's 27 delegates to the Republican convention are chosen in accordance with the vote totals statewide.

The Democratic process is more complicated. Each group gathers in its area in the precinct caucus and there is also an undecided area. The candidates' representatives then have 30 minutes to lobby voters. At that point, they determine which candidates are viable (at least 15% of the total number of voters in attendance; in smaller precincts, higher percentages are required to remain viable). Losing candidates are eliminated, and then they have another 30 minutes to lobby voters before the final totals are tallied. Technically, the only thing chosen at these caucuses are delegates to the county conventions, which are held in March. They choose delegates to the Congressional district conventions in April who in turn choose delegates to the state convention in June. The viability rules are similar for these higher level conventions. It's quite possible with candidates dropping out along the way that totals in these later conventions are somewhat different from those on February 1.

With only three major candidates, it's quite possible that Martin O'Malley will be shut out in a number of precincts and possible that Hillary or Bernie might get shut out in others as well. If the Democrats had as many candidates this year as the Republicans do, they might never get finished, but even as it is, the process will take a good bit of the evening in the larger precincts.

http://www.iowacaucus.biz/ia_caucus_howitworks.html

silverscreenselect wrote:This site has an illustration of the rules in effect for this year's Iowa caucuses. The Republican caucus is fairly much like a traditional primary followed by an election of delegates from the precinct to the county convention which is held later. They sometimes also vote on various resolutions as well, and the entire process takes about an hour. Although the participants at each level of the caucus choose the delegates to the next level (county/state/national), Iowa's 27 delegates to the Republican convention are chosen in accordance with the vote totals statewide.

The Democratic process is more complicated. Each group gathers in its area in the precinct caucus and there is also an undecided area. The candidates' representatives then have 30 minutes to lobby voters. At that point, they determine which candidates are viable (at least 15% of the total number of voters in attendance; in smaller precincts, higher percentages are required to remain viable). Losing candidates are eliminated, and then they have another 30 minutes to lobby voters before the final totals are tallied. Technically, the only thing chosen at these caucuses are delegates to the county conventions, which are held in March. They choose delegates to the Congressional district conventions in April who in turn choose delegates to the state convention in June. The viability rules are similar for these higher level conventions. It's quite possible with candidates dropping out along the way that totals in these later conventions are somewhat different from those on February 1.

With only three major candidates, it's quite possible that Martin O'Malley will be shut out in a number of precincts and possible that Hillary or Bernie might get shut out in others as well. If the Democrats had as many candidates this year as the Republicans do, they might never get finished, but even as it is, the process will take a good bit of the evening in the larger precincts.

http://www.iowacaucus.biz/ia_caucus_howitworks.html

The link describes the 2012 process. Are you sure there have been no relevant changes this year? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: The link describes the 2012 process. Are you sure there have been no relevant changes this year? --Bob

This site describes the process in all the states. The Republicans have changed their rules to make it more difficult for a candidate to game the system later in the process. In 2012, the secret ballot, although reported by the press as the "official" results, was not binding. Instead, delegates could vote for whoever they wanted at each level. Now, it is binding on the state convention.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/events.phtml?s=c

The media portray contests as closer than they really are to make their story more interesting. Four years ago, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum and others were all called front-runners.

And candidates' fundraising emails will say anything to attract donations.

IMHO, Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell to be the nominee.

jarnon wrote:The media portray contests as closer than they really are to make their story more interesting. Four years ago, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum and others were all called front-runners.

And candidates' fundraising emails will say anything to attract donations.

IMHO, Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell to be the nominee.

I rode that snowball all the way to the White House back in '92. Y'all wouldn't even have this thread now if front runners always won...

jarnon wrote:The media portray contests as closer than they really are to make their story more interesting. Four years ago, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum and others were all called front-runners.

And candidates' fundraising emails will say anything to attract donations.

IMHO, Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell to be the nominee.

Here's what fivethirtyeight.com has to say about the Iowa caucuses. Their take on other races is also accessible through this link.

Nate Silver is quite clear, though, that a lot of motion remains possible between now and the caucuses. --Bob

Colorado's caucuses for Presidential selection begin with a straw poll where you go stand in your designated candidate's corner. There is also a corner for uncommitted. Your candidate must achieve a 15% threshold of the voters present to be elected to advance to the County Convention, there to be elected to the State Convention, and on to National. So if your candidate has less than 15% support at the caucus, you can switch to the other candidate or to uncommitted as long as both have 15% support. It's very difficult for someone on the back range to be elected on the general ballot to National (back range versus the Front Range, Denver and the other cities on the I-25 corridor). It's a little easier to get elected from your Congressional District, but since our CD stretches from Pueblo, down around the Southwest corner and up to the Wyoming border, those delegates are almost always elected from Pueblo or Grand Junction, the biggest cities in the District, which consequently send the most delegates to State.

I didn't know about those maps, thanks!

Here's my state with terribly gerrymandered districts. Note how Oro Valley has been added to a very rural district:

Kentucky Republicans have moved from a primary to a caucus in order to allow Rand Paul to run for President and also to retain his Senate seat. I haven't seen particulars about how the caucus will be run.

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote:The media portray contests as closer than they really are to make their story more interesting. Four years ago, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum and others were all called front-runners.

And candidates' fundraising emails will say anything to attract donations.

IMHO, Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell to be the nominee.

Here's what fivethirtyeight.com has to say about the Iowa caucuses. Their take on other races is also accessible through this link.

Nate Silver is quite clear, though, that a lot of motion remains possible between now and the caucuses. --Bob

Funny that you don't mention Nate's OTHER take on the early primaries and caucuses -- the "polls-only" approach that he has used for every other primary that he's forecast in his career. To be fair, he's using the polls-plus method that you cite above, because he thinks it's more accurate than the polls-only method he used in 2012. But even he admits there's a HUGE (sic!) disparity between the pictures of the two races using the two different methods. If we stick to polls only, Bernie's a clear leader in New Hampshire, and holds a slight lead in Iowa.

mrkelley23 wrote:HUGE (sic!)

I like the way you think!

mrkelley23 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote:The media portray contests as closer than they really are to make their story more interesting. Four years ago, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum and others were all called front-runners.

And candidates' fundraising emails will say anything to attract donations.

IMHO, Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell to be the nominee.

Here's what fivethirtyeight.com has to say about the Iowa caucuses. Their take on other races is also accessible through this link.

Nate Silver is quite clear, though, that a lot of motion remains possible between now and the caucuses. --Bob

Funny that you don't mention Nate's OTHER take on the early primaries and caucuses -- the "polls-only" approach that he has used for every other primary that he's forecast in his career. To be fair, he's using the polls-plus method that you cite above, because he thinks it's more accurate than the polls-only method he used in 2012. But even he admits there's a HUGE (sic!) disparity between the pictures of the two races using the two different methods. If we stick to polls only, Bernie's a clear leader in New Hampshire, and holds a slight lead in Iowa.

I just linked to his default. The alternative method is a single click away. --Bob

Per the Arizona map above. Arizona used to put the Navajo and Hopis in the northeast part of the state in separate Congressional Districts. I believe this was as late as the 90's and maybe even the Oughts. This, at least, appears to have been rectified in the latest iteration.

Bob Juch>>>I didn't know about those maps, thanks!

Here's my state with terribly gerrymandered districts. Note how Oro Valley has been added to a very rural district:<<<

While you may disagree with the specific lines, the fact that Oro Valley has been put into the 1st is not,in itself, indicative of Gerrymandering. The demographics and geography of Arizona are such that the big rural districts have to take in populated areas around Phoenix/Tucson.

Geographically, the 1st may be a rural district-demographically it may be more of an exurban district.

Once or twice a decade, I buy Michael Barone's "Almanac of American Politics" mainly for its description of the individual Congressional Districts. The 2016 version is out-it is based on the 2014 election results. But no kindle version.

The 2014 edition (based on 2012 Election) is out on Kindle and is reasonable. I have been meaning to get it for awhile-so this thread pushed me to buy it.

Per AZ's big 1st-and the Navajo/Hopi deal (The Navajo Reservation surrounds the Hopi Reservation.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"The 1st is also home to the nation’s largest Indian population. A full 23% of its residents identify themselves as American Indians, who outnumber Hispanics in the district. Redistricting after the 2010 census united the Navajo and Hopi reservations in the same congressional district for the first time in the state’s history. The two tribes, historic enemies, concluded they could wield more political clout together than apart. Other tribes with a presence here are the Fort Apache, San Carlos, Havasupai, Hualapai, Kaibab, Gila River, and Zuni.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Per AZ redistricting after the 2010 Census:
"Somehow, when the dust settled, Democrats emerged from a state dominated by a GOP governor and legislature with the map of their dreams."

Barone, Michael; McCutcheon, Chuck; Trende, Sean; Kraushaar, Josh (2013-09-02). The Almanac of American Politics 2014 (Kindle Locations 3495-3496). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

Spock wrote:Bob Juch>>>I didn't know about those maps, thanks!

Here's my state with terribly gerrymandered districts. Note how Oro Valley has been added to a very rural district:<<<

While you may disagree with the specific lines, the fact that Oro Valley has been put into the 1st is not, in itself, indicative of Gerrymandering. The demographics and geography of Arizona are such that the big rural districts have to take in populated areas around Phoenix/Tucson.

Geographically, the 1st may be a rural district-demographically it may be more of an exurban district.

Actually I was referring to how the Phoenix districts are laid out and to the 4th and 1st districts.

Just looked at the map and I had never realized just how far south Flagstaff is.