Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***Official*** Dem NV Caucus / GOP SC Primary Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bud29
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Huge huge day.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
JerseyToughGuys
Tough Guy
.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
bud29
Footballguy
No Spinning A Nevada Loss For Clinton - Nate Silver
Earlier this week, we published benchmarks showing what the margin between Clinton and Sanders might look like in each of the 50 states in a race that was tied nationally. Those projections suggest that Nevada should be a slightly Clinton-leaning state: In a race that’s tied nationally, the benchmarks show Clinton winning Nevada by 3 percentage points.
The projections — which are based on a combination of Morning Consult polling, demographics, fundraising and Facebook data — are fairly crude. For instance, they lump black, Hispanic and Asian voters into the same “nonwhite” category instead of treating them separately. And they don’t make any distinction between a primary and a caucus. We’ll almost certainly revisit and refine these projections as we get better data, perhaps several times over the course of the election cycle.
And it’s possible that Nevada is a less favorable state for Clinton than those projections imply. Maybe the high density of union workers helps Sanders, for example, or Hispanic voters (who are plentiful in Nevada) are less of a firewall for Clinton than African-American voters. Maybe holding a caucus as opposed to a primary favors Sanders because low-turnout caucuses tend to attract a more liberal electorate.
It’s also possible that Nevada is more favorable to Clinton than the projections suggest, however. As Nate Cohn points out, Nevada’s voters are fairly old — and no demographic trait has better predicted support for the Democratic candidates than the age of the voter, with younger Democrats flocking overwhelmingly to Sanders and older ones to Clinton. And maybe it’s Clinton who benefits from holding a caucus since Sanders relies on support from first-time voters who may not show up to vote at 11 a.m. on a Saturday morning.
Either way, if Clinton loses today, she’ll have to explain why she’s the favorite nationally despite having won only one out of the first three states (and having won that one state, Iowa, only barely). In New Hampshire, Clinton had some obvious excuses: The state’s Democratic electorate is really white and really liberal and right next to Vermont.
In the event of a Nevada loss, Clinton’s excuses would be much less persuasive. Maybe she’s lost a lot of support among Hispanics, or among union voters, for instance. That might explain why she lost the state. But it wouldn’t excuse it. There are lots of union workers and Hispanic Democrats in other states, and having lost their support would be an enormous problem for Clinton.
Still, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It could be that Clinton takes advantage of the favorable-seeming demographics in Nevada to win by a clearer margin than the polls imply. Since polls usually aren’t very accurate in Nevada, a Clinton win in the high single digits or even the low double digits wouldn’t be a huge surprise.
Earlier this week, we published benchmarks showing what the margin between Clinton and Sanders might look like in each of the 50 states in a race that was tied nationally. Those projections suggest that Nevada should be a slightly Clinton-leaning state: In a race that’s tied nationally, the benchmarks show Clinton winning Nevada by 3 percentage points.
The projections — which are based on a combination of Morning Consult polling, demographics, fundraising and Facebook data — are fairly crude. For instance, they lump black, Hispanic and Asian voters into the same “nonwhite” category instead of treating them separately. And they don’t make any distinction between a primary and a caucus. We’ll almost certainly revisit and refine these projections as we get better data, perhaps several times over the course of the election cycle.
And it’s possible that Nevada is a less favorable state for Clinton than those projections imply. Maybe the high density of union workers helps Sanders, for example, or Hispanic voters (who are plentiful in Nevada) are less of a firewall for Clinton than African-American voters. Maybe holding a caucus as opposed to a primary favors Sanders because low-turnout caucuses tend to attract a more liberal electorate.
It’s also possible that Nevada is more favorable to Clinton than the projections suggest, however. As Nate Cohn points out, Nevada’s voters are fairly old — and no demographic trait has better predicted support for the Democratic candidates than the age of the voter, with younger Democrats flocking overwhelmingly to Sanders and older ones to Clinton. And maybe it’s Clinton who benefits from holding a caucus since Sanders relies on support from first-time voters who may not show up to vote at 11 a.m. on a Saturday morning.
Either way, if Clinton loses today, she’ll have to explain why she’s the favorite nationally despite having won only one out of the first three states (and having won that one state, Iowa, only barely). In New Hampshire, Clinton had some obvious excuses: The state’s Democratic electorate is really white and really liberal and right next to Vermont.
In the event of a Nevada loss, Clinton’s excuses would be much less persuasive. Maybe she’s lost a lot of support among Hispanics, or among union voters, for instance. That might explain why she lost the state. But it wouldn’t excuse it. There are lots of union workers and Hispanic Democrats in other states, and having lost their support would be an enormous problem for Clinton.
Still, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It could be that Clinton takes advantage of the favorable-seeming demographics in Nevada to win by a clearer margin than the polls imply. Since polls usually aren’t very accurate in Nevada, a Clinton win in the high single digits or even the low double digits wouldn’t be a huge surprise.
bud29
Footballguy
"Angela Butere, a 51-year-old cocktail waitress and a member of the Culinary Union, said she wasn’t voting. “I have to work,” she said. “They did tell us that if we want to, they’re not able to cover our shifts.” Who would she caucus for if she could? Sanders."God ####### dammit.
In The Zone
Footballguy
Just about to take a shower, get dressed and go vote. I don't expect much of a line to be honest.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
What time will results of the caucus start coming in?
They will have entrance polling in about a minute.
Actual results should be rollin gin over teh next couple of hours
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
We might see something like Iowa. There it was Hillary on the ground big early, dominating lead, and the n Sanders flooding the state with volunteers and closing late, with a very tight finish. We may see another near tie .... except I believe NV will be making it's popular results public.
Hillary needs a big win in NV and then she is in pretty good shape.
A tight win by Hillary, a near tie or a win for Sanders puts him in great shape for SC, but he has to win there or come close there too. He needs a momentum wave going into SC.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Two recent polls in SC have Trump <30 in SC.
If Trump disappoints there I think he's in trouble. He needs to win big, under 30% will hurt him bad.
If Trump disappoints there I think he's in trouble. He needs to win big, under 30% will hurt him bad.
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
This is something our country needs to address, imo. People need to have not just the right to vote but the realistic opportunities to exercise said right.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Hoping for good news today. Hillary needs to win this.
squistion
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I know but it's a bad trend if she loses a racially diverse state.
I really hate how the Democrats have become so liberal too. Very depressing.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Well she won in 2008 so I guess that's good news. MSNBC making it sound likes going to lose though. Guess we'll see.
Jeremy
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
We're headed for another Iowa.
timschochet
Footballguy
bud29
Footballguy
They've taken the cue from Hillary's campaign to downplay expectations for her big-time. Clinton has this unless some large, Bernie-heavy precincts suddenly report.
timschochet
Footballguy
The crowds are chanting at the undecided voters.
This is a really dumb way to choose our President. How absurd.
This is a really dumb way to choose our President. How absurd.
Loan Sharks
Not a Wolf
I think you and me are watching the same thing. I think the undecided guy just likes the attention.
Oh and I know sample size but that Bernie Bro stereo type that is going around has been very visually evident at the new york new york casino. Most Sanders guys are young white hipsters with tats facial hair and/or gauges. lol
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Hillary downplayed NV as 90% White, so it's not a big deal if she wins this, right?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Lead for Hillary widening as more of Clark County comes in.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
Jumbled mess, not sure how much stock to put in it. Am disappointed none the less.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Margin looks almost identical to the 2008 caucus with Obama. 10 point lead in Clark County now, and won by 10 points in that county in 2008.
Last edited by a moderator:
SIDA!
Footballguy
SIDA!
Footballguy
LOL...another first place finish would be a loss for Trump?
I love this spin. Nobody else has broken 30% anywhere...but somehow Trump is the most damaged by winning an election. GTFO.
