It's a darn good thing replacement printer cartridges are so expensive
Maybe we should just elect Trump president
then there were 6
why is carson still in this?
why is carson still in this?
hutch wrote:
but I don't understand what you're saying about NH and Iowa not mattering…..
They are the internet equivalent of writing "first" in the comments section and nothing else.
Their diversity, in terms of ethnicity, age, gender and religion, do not reflect the general populous, nor do they reflect many of the swing states that actually matter. Their populations are so small that winning 100% of both states would be wiped out with winning just 40% of South Carolina.
They have silly rules do not match other states which serve to make their voting less reliable for future polling. For example, the silliness of a caucus aside - to participate in the NH Primary, you can change you party affiliation for the 3 minutes it takes you to vote and switch it right back.
They are simply a self-created media circus who, if they didn't work so hard to maintain their "first" in the primary season, no candidate would spend 20% of what was spent there in the past 5 months.
And don't use people dropping out after IA or NH as an example as to why they are important - those were never runs from the beginning. Jeb Bush being the outlier - if Texas doesn't save him on March 1, then more books will be written about his failed campaign than any of the winning campaigns, save for Trump. But that's not going to happen either.
Sidehatch wrote:
then there were 6
why is carson still in this?
As long as people keep giving him money (which they do) that he can give to his friends running his campaign (which he does) then he will stay in this.
Plus black people in SC.
vansmack wrote:hutch wrote:
but I don't understand what you're saying about NH and Iowa not mattering…..
They are the internet equivalent of writing "first" in the comments section and nothing else.
Their diversity, in terms of ethnicity, age, gender and religion, do not reflect the general populous, nor do they reflect many of the swing states that actually matter. Their populations are so small that winning 100% of both states would be wiped out with winning just 40% of South Carolina.
They have silly rules do not match other states which serve to make their voting less reliable for future polling. For example, the silliness of a caucus aside - to participate in the NH Primary, you can change you party affiliation for the 3 minutes it takes you to vote and switch it right back.
They are simply a self-created media circus who, if they didn't work so hard to maintain their "first" in the primary season, no candidate would spend 20% of what was spent there in the past 5 months.
And don't use people dropping out after IA or NH as an example as to why they are important - those were never runs from the beginning. Jeb Bush being the outlier - if Texas doesn't save him on March 1, then more books will be written about his failed campaign than any of the winning campaigns, save for Trump. But that's not going to happen either.
well I agree with a lot of what you say but the conclusion could not be more wrong…. they may be a media circus, the states may not be typical, they may have ridiculous rules et etc but they do matter very much.. they would not matter IF we had a one day primary process.. but the way its organized what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire sets the table for the states that follow and impacts on the results from those states
For example, Obama's victory in Iowa mattered very much… we may not like the caucus process and think its all a bit of a joke but come on now…would you also say that Iowa didn't matter to Jimmy Carter? Or that finishing second in the wake of the infidelity rumours didn't matter to Bill Clinton in NH? Of course it mattered.
I think in the modern day of parties selecting candidates going back to 1976 the only president who didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire yet won the presidency was Bill Clinton in 1992…that is at least ten cycles…
You've obviously never worked on a campaign and rely solely on mainstream media for not only your news, but your narrative as well.
I'll just start with Obama in 2008. While winning in Iowa was nice, it signified one thing - he was the strongest proponent of ethanol. That's all you needed to win Iowa in 2008 (I say that because that's changing now).
Our numbers before the Iowa caucus indicated that we were already beating Clinton and Edwards - two Carolina favorites - in South Carolina and that was going to be the moment when people took the campaign seriously. Not Iowa.
Iowa was nothing more than a nice test for the on the ground organization.
I'll just start with Obama in 2008. While winning in Iowa was nice, it signified one thing - he was the strongest proponent of ethanol. That's all you needed to win Iowa in 2008 (I say that because that's changing now).
Our numbers before the Iowa caucus indicated that we were already beating Clinton and Edwards - two Carolina favorites - in South Carolina and that was going to be the moment when people took the campaign seriously. Not Iowa.
Iowa was nothing more than a nice test for the on the ground organization.
vansmack wrote:
You've obviously never worked on a campaign and rely solely on mainstream media for not only your news, but your narrative as well.
I'll just start with Obama in 2008. While winning in Iowa was nice, it signified one thing - he was the strongest proponent of ethanol. That's all you needed to win Iowa in 2008 (I say that because that's changing now).
Our numbers before the Iowa caucus indicated that we were already beating Clinton and Edwards - two Carolina favorites - in South Carolina and that was going to be the moment when people took the campaign seriously. Not Iowa.
well I did my fair share for Obama.. but I completely disagree..winning a primarily african-american state would not have made people take the campaign seriously like winning an almost exclusively white state…. winning Iowa was not just a seminal moment for Obama but also the country…
but good luck with these alternate universe arguments of yours…
hutch wrote:but good luck with these alternate universe arguments of yours…
Trump wants to kill the leader of North korea, on live tv. I can see, why he is so popular.
walk,on,by wrote:
Trump wants to kill the leader of North korea, on live tv. I can see, why he is so popular.
That's pretty much the kind of thing the leader of North Korea would do.
walk,on,by wrote:
Trump wants to kill the leader of North korea, on live tv. I can see, why he is so popular.
can he just do rodman instead?
hutch wrote:
well I did my fair share for Obama.. but I completely disagree..winning a primarily african-american state would not have made people take the campaign seriously like winning an almost exclusively white state…. winning Iowa was not just a seminal moment for Obama but also the country…
but good luck with these alternate universe arguments of yours…
Good thing there's an election right now where you have the opportunity to prove me wrong. Best of luck.
hutch wrote:Are you high?
winning Iowa was not just a seminal moment for Obama but also the country…
vansmack wrote:hutch wrote:
well I did my fair share for Obama.. but I completely disagree..winning a primarily african-american state would not have made people take the campaign seriously like winning an almost exclusively white state…. winning Iowa was not just a seminal moment for Obama but also the country…
but good luck with these alternate universe arguments of yours…
Good thing there's an election right now where you have the opportunity to prove me wrong. Best of luck.
I don't see how the fact South Carolina -or any other set of states- matters will prove Iowa and NH don't matter….sorry.
Remember you're the one who said Iowa and NH don't matter so if anyone has to prove anything I think its you….
Julian, wrote:hutch wrote:Are you high?
winning Iowa was not just a seminal moment for Obama but also the country…
I don't get high anymore…I mean if someone has some blow to share sure.. but I don't see that happening anymore…
hutch wrote:What do you consider to be a "primarily african-american state"?
well I did my fair share for Obama.. but I completely disagree..winning a primarily african-american state would not have made people take the campaign seriously like winning an almost exclusively white state….
There are exactly zero states that have at least 50% or higher African-American population.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/
killsaly wrote:hutch wrote:What do you consider to be a "primarily african-american state"?
well I did my fair share for Obama.. but I completely disagree..winning a primarily african-american state would not have made people take the campaign seriously like winning an almost exclusively white state….
There are exactly zero states that have at least 50% or higher African-American population.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/
I meant the electorate in the democratic primary is primarily African-American.. sorry.
Got to say I had never heard anyone make the argument that Iowa did not matter or that President Obama was counting on SC
It has been a long established fact that it was the Iowa victory that led African Americans to take Obama's candidacy seriously..before that happened in polls African Americans were supporting Hillary…Once they saw he could win (when he won white Iowa) they began to give him a serious look…
But apparently in the Smackie world of fiction Obama would have lost Iowa , gone on to lose New Hampshire, then won South Carolina and somehow won the nomination…. this is seriously bizzarro..
anyways, got to take the kids to their therapies so I will have to beg off this thread
killsaly wrote:hutch wrote:What do you consider to be a "primarily african-american state"?
well I did my fair share for Obama.. but I completely disagree..winning a primarily african-american state would not have made people take the campaign seriously like winning an almost exclusively white state….
There are exactly zero states that have at least 50% or higher African-American population.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/
although 27% and I'm fairly certain everyone of them are Democrats
so a majority of Democrats in SC are African American
hutch wrote:Horse shit. Pure, unadulterated horse shit.
It has been a long established fact that it was the Iowa victory that led African Americans to take Obama's candidacy seriously..before that happened in polls African Americans were supporting Hillary…Once they saw he could win (when he won white Iowa) they began to give him a serious look…
Here is a 538 article that links to two polls from around AUGUST 2007 showing Obama with close to 50% support among African Americans. While that did climb to 82% by the end of the Democratic Primaries, the idea that there was a massive swing from Hillary to Obama post-Iowa, or that Hillary led among African-American voters, is fiction.
Julian, wrote:hutch wrote:Horse shit. Pure, unadulterated horse shit.
It has been a long established fact that it was the Iowa victory that led African Americans to take Obama's candidacy seriously..before that happened in polls African Americans were supporting Hillary…Once they saw he could win (when he won white Iowa) they began to give him a serious look…
…opps retraction as I thought you were talking about 2016