StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 08:10 PM) So Sanders out earned Clinton, but has less to show for it than Clinton who didn't earn it? Sounds like the delegate system took some clues from Sanders economic ideas. hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr eta actually much easier to make that analogy into an indictment of capitalism!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Carson, no one seems to know what he's doing. Probably including him. Grift. I'm still not sure if Carson himself is in on it, but his entire campaign staff is just raking in money. They've been spending something like 90% of their intake on more fundraising efforts conveniently funneled through their own consulting firms.

no

1. Home Depot or Lowes are okay for paint. I prefer Ace generally, especially their semi-gloss trim/door white paint. Most paints are "paint and primer in one!" which just means they suck at both and go on thick with poor coverage. Oil-based paints are "better" but are kind of a pain in the ass and pretty much everyone uses latex unless you have a very specific reason not to. If you are trying to cover over some darker colors on the wall, prime it with Kilz first. Sherwin Williams is going to be a little bit more expensive, but will generally be better paint. Working with the nicer paints can make the job go a lot easier. Don't cheap out on the brushes, either. 2. Like Rock said, it's probably just normal contraction due to low humidity in the winter.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 11:51 AM) Sanders beats Clinton by 20+ percentage points. But thanks to the super-delegate system, Clinton actually won more delegates, 15-13. Totally messed up system. The super delegates were put in place to that the party still has some control over the nomination process. They can and do change, though. IIRC Clinton had a huge lead in SD's in 2008 as well, but they slowly started to shift to Obama as the race went on. edit: I can't imagine a situation where the DNC uses the super delegate power to override popular support for another candidate that turns out well for them, though. Imagine that the only reason Clinton gets the nomination is because she held on to enough super delegates while Sanders actually won primary after primary. How many Sanders supporters would turn out to vote for Clinton in November versus being justifiably angry at the Democratic Party leadership?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 10:50 AM) If Illinois / Chicago is any example, count me out. If California is an example, again, count me out. California managed to finally get its budget situation back in line once Democrats got supermajorities in the state legislature. Progressive Minnesota is kicking butt in the upper Midwest.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 11:17 AM) That is the irritating part. While calling a 4th place finish momentum, they are missing out on the chances to get real momentum behind whoever is the NotTrump candidate for the convention, leading to an actual convention fight for the nomination, instead of giving the eventual candidate a chance to start campaigning months earlier. Who gets to be this NotTrump candidate and what claim do they have over the others, though?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 10:50 AM) Christie has to drop out now, right? He put all his eggs in NH and lost. I thought Jeb would be on his way out, but with his showing, he clearly won't drop out and Kasich clearly can continue a little longer (how much so, who knows...unless he gets the backing of Bush). He'll be out officially soon https://twitter.com/ABC/status/697444192193265664

On the other hand, Romney also maintained that steady 30-35% polling support throughout the primaries until he was the last man standing. Trump is going to continue to pile up delegates. It's not the exact same dynamic as it was in 2012, but I don't think a ceiling of 30-35% is some sort of a death knell for the nomination.

Labor force participation and the various unemployment stats (U-3 is the one typically reported) compiled by the BLS all have their uses, but hacks love to conflate them when convenient.

Supreme Court issues a stay on the EPA's sweeping carbon emission regulations http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/polit...egulations.html

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 10:24 PM) Take the Labor Bureaus total number of adults in the workforce and divide it by the total number of adults in the country and you should get a number around 40%. That's not how unemployment works though. That's labor force participation.

42% unemployment?

Sanders is winning every demographic group in NH. Race, gender, she, education, he's winning them all. Except income over 200k.

Sanders supporters not turning out if he isn't the nominee is plausible. Anything more than a negligible handful turning out to vote for the Republican in November is not.

Yeah the push back isn't on whether Rubio would try to nectar in yet general. It's that left liberal and leftist voters excited about an anti - banking quasi social Democrat would somehow possibly vote for Kasich, Rubio or Bloomberg.

I also don't think the "Rubio is an inspiring speaker" ever made sense, but it really doesn't look too hot right now

Kasich is not a moderate.

Why would someone engaged enough to partake in a caucus for Sanders ever vote for one of those three? What's the ideological overlap there?

Lmao

Greg is pro tier let's be honest

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 09:02 PM) Well I was wrong about this

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 09:58 AM) This is true to an extent, I'm not sure I believe the core youth support of Sanders that is loudest are the same as the group you are talking about True, but a significant amount of that core of young voters may not even have been eligible to vote in 2010. I think the quickest way to turn them back off of politics or at least push them into voting 3rd party rather than Democrats is the line that some Clinton supporters seem to be taking though, mainly that they're not "real" Democrats, fundamental change is a hopeless fantasy of dumb children, etc. Without some actual data of the ideological breakdown of Democratic voters and non-voters in Presidential and non-Presidential elections, I don't think you can really make that swipe in your first sentence. And for as much as I've supported the core concept of strategic voting over vanity pat-yourself-on-the-back 3rd party votes, the party establishment still shares in the blame if they have no coherent strategy or message to get people to the polls. In the 5 years I lived at my old house, I had exactly one candidate's campaign come door-to-door to talk and leave campaign literature (Pat McGuire, state senator). I compare that to first-hand experience of helping at the local level where the candidates canvased the entire area in the weeks leading up to the off-year spring election in order to drive turnout.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 09:20 AM) If the left wing of the democratic party actually cared about issues enough to vote during midterms more than sharing articles on social media they could probably have accomplished more. Hillary's campaign is so much better this time, she's a better candidate than 08. She's smart and she doesn't pull any punches. Something I didn't care for in 08 but see a lot of appeal in now. You know why Clinton has such a murky record? She has actually been in the policy fights of the last 20 years and having to be part of the decisions of watering down or strengthening bills that affected people. Meanwhile Sanders was in his safe lillywhite seat in Vermont sniping. Caucusing with the democrats and never getting an elite chair in the senate. But yeah, I'm sure as president his debate skillz will convince the country to vote in a wave of candidates and create a liberal dream gov't. I'm convinced. I'm not sure that it's the more activist left wing that sits out off-year elections. The DNC as a whole hasn't really had a strategy for that for decades whereas Republicans and conservatives have focused on politics from the local level on up for at least a couple of decades now.

Hillary won some coin tosses for the 11,000 county delegates. These delegates meet later and chose the 1,400 statewide delegates that then choose the 44 delegates that will actually go to the DNC. The "state delegate equivalents" are the numbers that get reported as far as who "won" Iowa this week. It's not the actual delegate count because those aren't set for months still and are subject to some level of shenanigans (e.g. Republicans in 2012). But what the media stories are conflating are the SDE's and the coin flip delegates that Clinton won. They aren't the same thing. The news story makes no sense because Iowa's system makes no sense.