Trigged and Sally are starting to shake.. Michigan had almost a 50% increase in voter turnout vs 2016. November is going to be fun.
Russian trolls tried to blow up twitter with #ByeByeBernie and #ByeByeBiden but instead #ByeByeTrump is trending...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESXgAG6XQAE5hBr?format=jpg&name=small
Russia's primary target is the US shale oil industry. That must be crippled first.
From The Guardian:
"Despite all the hype after the first three primaries, in wildly unrepresentative and largely irrelevant states, Sanders was winning by pluralities between one-quarter and one-third of the vote. In several cases his support was only half that of 2016, suggesting his surprise success last time was as much anti-Clinton protest as pro-Sanders support. Even when the field started to thin, Sanders only won a majority in his home state of Vermont, and only barely so.
While Super Tuesday was brutal for the large size of the Biden wins, the modest Sanders wins were equally telling. Despite massive campaigning efforts in terms of both money and personnel and very favorable poll numbers for weeks, Sanders won just 34% of the vote in California. Biden, who had barely campaigned in the Golden State, came second with 27%, just seven points behind."
Trollminator wrote:
Trigged and Sally are starting to shake.. Michigan had almost a 50% increase in voter turnout vs 2016. November is going to be fun.
primary voter turnout doesn't have any predictive value for general election turnout.
I hope you are right, but this is not a compelling argument.
targets wrote:
Russia's primary target is the US shale oil industry. That must be crippled first.
Almost done - trump helped a lot with his market manipulation over the last three years. I think he's going to lose Texas over that in Nov.
voted 3rd party before wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Trigged and Sally are starting to shake.. Michigan had almost a 50% increase in voter turnout vs 2016. November is going to be fun.
primary voter turnout doesn't have any predictive value for general election turnout.
I hope you are right, but this is not a compelling argument.
Source?
targets wrote:
Russia's primary target is the US shale oil industry. That must be crippled first.
Russia doesn't have that power over us. But the Saudis do.
Trollminator wrote:
voted 3rd party before wrote:
primary voter turnout doesn't have any predictive value for general election turnout.
I hope you are right, but this is not a compelling argument.
Source?
Sure, but you just as easily could have googled it:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/voter-turnout-democratic-primaries-super-tuesday.htmlhttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/There are more links in those posts if you like, or the aforementioned google
Trollminator wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESXgAG6XQAE5hBr?format=jpg&name=small
Do you think this is funny somehow?
Fat hurts wrote:
targets wrote:
Russia's primary target is the US shale oil industry. That must be crippled first.
Russia doesn't have that power over us. But the Saudis do.
The Saudis are reacting to Russia's move.
Yosinglerct wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESXgAG6XQAE5hBr?format=jpg&name=smallDo you think this is funny somehow?
Apparently homophobia is OK for some progressives, I guess. Or moderates.
targets wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Russia doesn't have that power over us. But the Saudis do.
The Saudis are reacting to Russia's move.
Right. And the Saudis control the game. They put Russia in their place. The US shale industry is collateral damage and I hope it dies.
voted 3rd party before wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Source?
Sure, but you just as easily could have googled it:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/voter-turnout-democratic-primaries-super-tuesday.htmlhttps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/There are more links in those posts if you like, or the aforementioned google
Ok, did you read those articles?
The one from 538 is from 2016, and it's assertion was wrong then... turnout was way up for Rs vs Dems and Trump won. So in that contest it might as well have been a strong indicator. As far as the Slate article, it is saying there is no clear correlation of primary turnout and general election performance across different election years, but not suggesting that for each individual election.
The fact that Bernie has lost votes vs 2016 is clearly a sign that a lot of his supporters didn't like Hillary... those votes are now with Biden. That plus larger turnout is very promising, it makes no sense to assert it will have no impact in the general election.
targets wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Russia doesn't have that power over us. But the Saudis do.
The Saudis are reacting to Russia's move.
US is a net exporter of oil. This is pretty much the same stupid sh!t Russia and OPEC do every year now, this time just a little bit harder. From a national standpoint they're all fvcked and they know it. Their economies are solely based on selling oil (and nat gas in Russia's case I guess) and the price of oil is never going back over $60 with fracking being relatively efficient. The US is a little bit more diverse but some over-leveraged shale companies are probably going to go under. Those are pretty much the same kind of people who thought it would be a great idea to start flipping houses in 2007 when they should have been getting out.
The Saudi royal family in the meantime is probably sh!tting bricks and has the least amount of leverage to work with
Yosinglerct wrote:
Do you think this is funny somehow?
Do try to lighten up. Thanks.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
"The Gap" is 8.6 percentage points here:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
Dropping like a stone too, you idiot wanker. You picked this stat to somehow show Trump is doing well? You are damn stupid, mate.
Trollminator wrote:
Ok, did you read those articles?
The one from 538 is from 2016, and it's assertion was wrong then... turnout was way up for Rs vs Dems and Trump won. So in that contest it might as well have been a strong indicator. As far as the Slate article, it is saying there is no clear correlation of primary turnout and general election performance across different election years, but not suggesting that for each individual election.
The fact that Bernie has lost votes vs 2016 is clearly a sign that a lot of his supporters didn't like Hillary... those votes are now with Biden. That plus larger turnout is very promising, it makes no sense to assert it will have no impact in the general election.
Of course I have read them.
When trying to figure out if primary turnout indicates anything meaningful about general election turnout, looking at one example is not a good practice. You have to look at the trend over time. You are looking for predictive power and the predictive power is just pretty weak. There is a ton of underlying political science articles that show this as well.
If you want to pick convenient indicators that support your narrative, and not to figure out if those indicators actually mean what you think they do, well, be my guest.
Fat hurts wrote:
targets wrote:
The Saudis are reacting to Russia's move.
Right. And the Saudis control the game. They put Russia in their place. The US shale industry is collateral damage and I hope it dies.
The current oil producer game is:
US #1
Saudi #2
Russia #3
The end game is
Russia #1 or #2
Saudi #2 or #1
US #3