Pleasingly, Rubio's just imploded in debate *.*

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/...re-debate.html#

 

“Chris Christie, whose strategy for the debate was clearly to take out Rubio, repeatedly called attention to the senator’s canned speech and accused him of using memorized sound bits to cover up for his complete lack of executive experience. That strategy worked. The exchange became an instant classic in the history of political smackdowns, especially because, incredibly, a clearly rattled Rubio continued to use his canned speech, repeating his attack on Obama a total of five times over the first half of the debate.”

 

Which is still a different dynamic to actively ousting a leader. If Labour Party superdelegates had had the power to overturn Corbyn for Burnham (or rather, if the electoral college had still been in place), there's no doubt they'd have done it.

 

But Corbyn has a real chance of winning the next election too, given his youth vote popularity. It could be like Reagen Thatcher all over again but the opposite way!

I love the way Rubio attacks Obama for wanting to change the country. Perhaps a candidate should try saying

 

I want to be your president. If I'm elected, I promise not to change anything. At all. Ever.

 

Not very inspiring, is it?

But Corbyn has a real chance of winning the next election too, given his youth vote popularity. It could be like Reagen Thatcher all over again but the opposite way!

You really don't understand how elections work, do you.

 

The fact that there are far, far fewer young people than older people (don't know if you heard, but contraception kind of became a thing in the 60s and the birth rate collapsed) aside, I'll just leave this here as a basic primer on why the myth of youth turnout driving progressive landslides is just that - a myth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-el...ople-voted.html

 

It's because of the above that there has never been a single election in the developed world where a candidate won on the *sole* basis of their popularity with young voters. Without other age groups backing you, you will not win. Also going to take this moment to reaffirm that, shockingly enough, when young voters grow up, get a job, get a family and become broadly okay with their lot in life, some (not all) tend to take a slightly different view on utopian political candidates/propositions. As a result, youth voters overwhelmingly agreeing with a political candidate/proposition isn't necessarily a sign that it's going to be all the rage in twenty years' time either.

I love the way Rubio attacks Obama for wanting to change the country. Perhaps a candidate should try saying

Not very inspiring, is it?

 

To be fair, he's not actually saying changing the country is a bad thing per se, he's just trying to rebuff one of the attack lines some of the other Republicans are throwing at him. There's been talk that Rubio would be "another Obama" in that he's an amateur with little executive experience; Rubio's counter to that is that Obama's problem isn't that he was an amateur who didn't know how to implement anything, it's that (in his view) the things he's trying to implement are wrong.

 

That said, that clip will still probably go down as Rubio's "these strikes are WRONG" moment.

Edited February 7, 20169 yr by Danny

I don't think it's quite as killer as that, but I hope it's enough to puncture his tyres before New Hampshire and give the likes of Kasich or Christie an in which drags out the 'first amongst 'moderates'' title.

My prediction for New Hampshire today: 20 point Sandslide.

 

Trump wins for the GOP but Kasich comes second (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE)

Are we assuming that if the GOP moderates take it in turns to get a shock good result then it'll end up with none of them getting the nomination?

That's what I'm SAYING MY PRAYERS for

then what happens??

Then Trump wins and gets obliterated in November. I assume.

Nah, Cruz.

oh lol wait i skipped the word 'moderates' MY BAD

P.S.

 

So Bernie is starting to slay :/

Also gonna whack round this thing that's been going about for the last couple of weeks as a reminder before people start getting carried away: the delegate route that each candidate needs to be meeting to get 50% of the delegates (before considering superdelegates, so really Bernie's would have to be substantially outstripping his total by a couple of hundred at some point along this to still get nominated at current superdelegate rates). The candidate beating their total at a given point should be taken as the frontrunner at that point.

 

As a reminder, Hillary got more than her required cumulative total after New Hampshire with her Iowa total alone - 23.

 

http://cookpolitical.com/file/Dem_Dem_2_012116.jpg

Again though, this idea that Sanders' only chances of winning states were in Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't make sense: he wouldn't've pulled to within a few % of Clinton in the national polls if he wasn't in pole position in a lot of states.

Edited February 10, 20169 yr by Danny

It's also just been said on CNN that Sanders is beating Clinton by 2:1 among blue-collar white workers. He's gone well beyond just the "Guardianista" middle-class types.

Edited February 10, 20169 yr by Danny

Again though, this idea that Sanders' only chances of winning states were in Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't make sense: he wouldn't've pulled to within a few % of Clinton in the national polls if he wasn't in pole position in a lot of states.

There's winning in a lot of states and winning by enough in a lot of states. Also worth adding that the views of white working class voters aren't immutable - a 2:1 margin in the state Sanders bet the farm on doesn't necessarily mean he'll be racking up those margins with white working class voters in, say, South Carolina.

http://cookpolitical.com/file/Dem_Dem_2_012116.jpg

The result in New Hampshire: Clinton 9, Sanders 15. So despite the Sanders landslide, Clinton still got the number of delegates she'd need to be on track for nomination - on top of outperforming her target in Iowa.