My Picks For Nevada (D) And South Carolina (R)
Yes, we've got two primary races to be decided this Saturday, in two different states and two different parties. Democrats in Nevada and South Carolina Republicans will both vote on the same day, for no real logical reason. Confused? Well, it'll only get more confusing, since next week Republicans in Nevada will caucus and South Carolina Democrats will vote in their primary -- on different days. So at least this week we'll be able to see two results on the same evening.
Before I begin prognosticating on the Silver State and the Palmetto State, though, I've got to bring my record up to date. If you're playing along at home, you can check your picks against my record so far, because I believe everyone should be accountable about their wild predictions (me, most especially).
Heading into New Hampshire, I had a pretty dismal record from Iowa: 0 for 1 for Democrats and 1 for 3 for Republicans. Overall, this added up to only one correct pick out of four. Like I said, pretty dismal. New Hampshire, however, boosted my overall totals, and my record now stands at:
Total correct 2016 Democratic picks: 1 for 2 -- 50%
Total correct 2016 Republican picks: 3 for 6 -- 50%
Total overall correct picks: 4 for 8 -- 50%.
As one commenter (to my previous "picks" article) noted, I am now doing precisely as well as flipping a coin. Woo hoo! Well, that's somewhat unfair, since flipping a coin could indeed work for the Democratic race, but you'd need (at least) a rather odd 5-sided coin to predict the Republican races, so far. Get out the old Dungeons-and-Dragons dice!
Seriously, though, I did fairly well in New Hampshire, correctly picking Bernie's win (an easy call), but incorrectly predicting Bernie would win "by 12 percent." In fact, the margin was ten points higher, making my bold prediction of 12 points (some were predicting single digits) look pretty timid in hindsight. On the Republican side, I chose Trump, Kasich, and Rubio. I was pretty pleased to see Kasich fulfill my gut-level guess, but obviously I hadn't counted how much Rubio hurt himself in that last debate.
OK, enough with the old news, let's take a look forward to Saturday's races.
South Carolina (Republicans)
All the available polling shows that picking South Carolina's top three winners is going to be pretty easy -- merely a matter of whether Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio wins second to Donald Trump's first. I'll get to that in a minute, but first a note about fourth and fifth places is necessary.
There are three Republican candidates who are looking more and more like afterthoughts in the 2016 campaign. Ben Carson, in particular, really needs to throw in the towel and just admit that he peaked way, way too early. John Kasich just isn't going to catch fire, and also should consider hanging up his spurs. None of that is very controversial -- it's pretty much conventional wisdom at this point. But the third conclusion is a very tough one for many Republicans to swallow, because as the Washington Post aptly pointed out today, South Carolina is truly Jeb Bush's last stand. If Bush can't even make it into the top three, then he will become "Exhibit A" for the concept that money can't always just flat-out buy elections. Bush's campaign had more money than Croesus, and it did him precisely no good whatsoever. He's come in fourth place and sixth place in the first two contests. Another fourth-place finish (or even fifth, if Kasich outdoes him this Saturday) means that Jeb's race is essentially over. If you can't even manage a top-three finish with over a hundred million dollars to spend, then you are obviously not the candidate the voters want -- and you should realize that, sooner rather than later.
Will Jeb actually end his campaign after South Carolina? Maybe, maybe not. He'll most likely drag things out until Super Tuesday (he's certainly got enough money to get him there), although perhaps not. He is a "party first" kind of guy, and the pressure from within the Republican establishment for him to clear the field for Rubio will become overwhelming. So we'll see what happens, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if Jeb dropped out of the race after Nevada (if not right after South Carolina).
So much for the also-rans. South Carolina polling shows the clear choice for who is going to win the state, and his name is Donald Trump. This will give Trump two wins out of three, and will immediately bury all that "Trump will never be the Republican nominee" magical thinking, once and for all. If Trump wins South Carolina, even David Brooks will have to admit he's been wrong about Trump all along, to put this another way.
Roughly fifteen or twenty points back in the GOP polling, there is a tight race for second place. Neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio is going to win South Carolina, but they both want the bragging rights of being "the only Republican with a chance against Trump." If Cruz places second, he'll have one third-place finish, one second-place showing, and one outright win to tout. If Rubio edges out Cruz, he'll have one second-place finish to go with his third-place showing in Iowa. So both candidates are fighting for the first second-place finish either of them will have. Cruz will have hit the top three in every primary so far, so Rubio really has the most to gain from a good showing this Saturday.
The race between Cruz and Rubio has gotten pretty vicious over the past week. In fact, the entire Republican race has gotten nasty (as evidenced by that knife-fight of a debate we all were subjected to, last weekend). But the biggest charge being made against Cruz is an especially pertinent one, since the evangelical vote is such a big portion of his base support. Both Rubio and Trump are blatantly calling Cruz a liar, repeatedly -- for his loose use of "facts" in his campaign ads and for the dirty trick he pulled on Ben Carson in Iowa. Being dishonest is one of the litmus tests for sincerely religious voters, to put it mildly. They'll normally forgive all kinds of sins, but lying can be a real deal-breaker. If the charge of Cruz being a liar sticks in any way in the closing days of the campaign, his support could fade considerably.
Right now, Cruz is still polling marginally higher than Rubio. However, the trend line is not good for Cruz. He's been slipping, over the past week, while Rubio has been slowly rising. These late-breaking trends are often indicative of who will turn out on primary day, so I'm going to go with the trendlines and against the absolute polling numbers and predict that Rubio edges Cruz for second place. This makes my slate of picks for the Republican caucuses in South Carolina: (1) Trump, (2) Rubio, and (3) Cruz. We'll see how I do Saturday night (maybe I'll be able to improve my coin-flip average).
Nevada (Democrats)
This one is sheer gut-level prediction. There are two core reasons for this uncertainty. The first reason has multiple parts: there just isn't all that much polling done in Nevada; it's a caucus state with low turnout; and voters can register at the caucuses themselves, which allows first-time or crossover voters the chance to be heard, even at the last minute. The second big reason that we've all got nothing tangible to base any Nevada predictions on is that the two polls which have appeared from Nevada show an absolute tie. One of them had a 45-to-45 dead heat, and one of them had Hillary Clinton up over Bernie Sanders by a single point, 48 percent to his 47. That's about as close as you can get, poll-wise. Especially since these are the only two polls which were even conducted this year -- there's no other data to contradict them, and there simply are no "trendlines" because you'd need more data to spot any trends.
In fact, to even get any competent analysis of the Nevada race, you've got to read the local Nevada newspapers. Here's a pretty good article on what the turnout Saturday night might mean for Clinton and Sanders, and here's another one on the general state of the Democratic race, if anyone's interested. Nevada, as I've previously noted, is the Rodney Dangerfield of early primary states: it just don't get no respect.
So what have we got? Hillary arrived in the state early and has done her best to build a powerful network within the state. She's got the backing of some heavyweight Unions (which play an outsized role with Democrats in the state), but Bernie seems to have generated quite a bit of support from rank-and-file Union members. Bernie arrived late to Nevada, but has built a formidable organization here since. A huge turnout might mean a Bernie win, but then that didn't work perfectly for him in Iowa, so who knows? Both campaigns have made unforced errors which might influence Nevada voters. A Clinton campaign bigwig tried to brush off Nevada as being "80 percent white" (to lower expectations for how well Hillary would do), which prompted some well-deserved ridicule from Nevada's most powerful Democrat, Harry Reid. But some Sanders campaign people tried to sneak into Union-only areas they weren't allowed in, which is kind of an affront to Union members. These are both pretty minor transgressions, but in such a close race they could have an influence.
Bernie has the most to gain by a Nevada win, clearly. If he wins two out of the first three states, then that whole "electability" argument for Clinton gets a lot less potent. He'll also be able to claim he's the candidate with the momentum on his side -- and he'll be right. Whether this helps him or not in South Carolina will remain to be seen, but he'll surely be pushing the idea hard if he wins Nevada.
Clinton, on the other hand, has the most to lose in the contest. If she loses, her campaign will start getting very desperate. If she wins, however, then things will settle back onto an even keel. She'll be able to tout her "firewall" of minority voters against Bernie's white liberal support, and if she wins South Carolina afterwards then she'll be right back on the track to being the inevitable nominee. Bernie's not going to disappear overnight or anything, but he will fade into the background for the Clinton campaign, which will then quite likely turn their sights to the Republican opposition. So while losing Nevada wouldn't necessarily mean the end of the road for Bernie, it certainly would make it a lot more difficult for him to convince enough Super Tuesday voters to allow him to continue with any hope of winning the nomination.
Essentially, due to the lack of polling and the lack of any trends breaking the tie, calling Nevada means deciding whether Hillary will edge Bernie out as she did in Iowa, or whether Bernie will outperform polling expectations, as he did in New Hampshire. Nevada's a caucus state, like Iowa, but Bernie's got the wind at his back after New Hampshire.
I fully admit that my prediction may be biased, but I'm going to go ahead and give the nod to Bernie Sanders to win the Nevada caucuses. My bias is that of a political wonk -- I'd like to see the Democratic race continue for a while longer, rather than watch it all be wrapped up before Super Tuesday even gets here. So take my pick with a grain of salt, if you choose. And, as always, please share your own picks in the comments if you think I'm wildly off base.
My final picks for this Saturday: Bernie squeaks out a win in Nevada, and South Carolina goes for (1) Trump, (2) Rubio, (3) Cruz.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
To HuffPost commenter Fran Moore -
First, I apologize for answering you here rather than at HuffPost, but I refuse to get a Facebook account, so I am unable to post comments there. In fact, I would beg any of my regular readers here who do have a FB acct. to go over to this column on HuffPost (click the "Cross-posted at" link at the end of the column above) and direct her over here to see my answer.
As for your pointing out I had achieved the record of coin-flipping, I laughed out loud when I read it. Touché! I thought it was so funny, in fact, I had to include it in today's article... so thanks for keeping me humble!
In the first of these columns I ever wrote, way back in 2008, I explained that pundits should indeed be held accountable:
Which is a shame. If political writers (both professional and amateur) aren't willing to run the risk of being wrong (and looking foolish), then what are they in the prognostication business for anyway? After all, every two-bit local news sportscaster is willing to tell you his picks for the outcome of each week's football games, why shouldn't our national political press be just as willing to do the same?
I still believe the same, and I cheerfully accept any ridicule of my picks or my record which is fully deserved.
Yours was, most definitely. That's why I had to include it today.
:-)
-CW
Chris,
Against ALL better judgement, I opened a facebook account for the express and singular purpose of being able to comment at Huffington Post - what can I say, there were a few bloggers over there with whom I enjoyed chatting, from time to time and they were worth the facebook effort. And, believe you me, it was an EFFORT!
As it turned out, however, the facebook thing never worked out for me and I was never again able to comment at HP, hard as I tried to make it work.
It seems I am stuck with having a facebook account, though, despite the fact that I never use it and couldn't sign into it if my life depended on it.
Anyway, have you thought of disabling your HP comments (I know it can and has been done!) and then people with have to come here. :)
My picks would be:
Nevada Dems: Sanders
SC Dems: Clinton (in hopes of keeping it somewhat interesting)
Genuinely interesting is the Republican contest. My "picks" are more wishful thinking than anything but I figure I can get away with that since I cannot be regarded as a pundit in any way, shape or form!
SC: 1. Trump; 2. Bush; 3. Kasich
Nevada: 1. Trump; 2. Cruz; 3. Rubio
My pick for Nevada is Bernie by more than a squeeker..
I fully admit that this is "WishCasting" more than anything else...
Hillary doesn't DESERVE to win and I find it personally offensive and nauseating when she does...
Don't really care about the GOP race, but I'll follow the herd and call it for Trump.. :D
Liz,
I too have also did a FB thingy.. There was a span of a couple weeks when I didn't have a phone so FB was the only way I could communicate with family..
I got a new NOTEPAD 4 (have you seen the VR?? Oh my gods, it's frighteningly amazing!! :D ) but now I am stuck with a FB account..
"You keep that shit forever. Like luggage."
-Eddie Murphy, DELIRIOUS
:D
Anyway, have you thought of disabling your HP comments (I know it can and has been done!) and then people with have to come here. :)
Maybe a blurb at the end of the commentary stating, Author replies to all comments at http://www.chrisweigant.com or words to that effect..
Might piss off the HuffPoop gods, though... :D
Michale
MS,
SC Dems: Clinton (in hopes of keeping it somewhat interesting)
You want "interesting"??
If Bernie wins Nevada *AND* South Carolina, I can guarantee you that it will DEFINITELY be "interesting".. :D
Michale
CW,
Maybe a blurb at the end of the commentary stating, Author replies to all comments at http://www.chrisweigant.com or words to that effect..
If you DO do that, I promise to be on my best behavior.. :D
At least at first. heh
Michale
HILLARY BLAMES AMERICA: NOT READY FOR WOMAN
http://www.vogue.com/13393672/hillary-clinton-democratic-candidate-primary-2016-election/
That's our Hillary. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault. She is NEVER to blame..
She learned well from Obama... :^/
Michale
umm, that's not what the article is about. i wouldn't be shocked if hillary had made that comment, but it's the author/interviewer (jonathan van meter) who says that, phrased as a question about christine quinn running for NYC mayor. hillary's response, “How much do you think the woman thing mattered?”
then the author tries to lead her toward making a general comment about sexism in politics, which to loosely paraphrase is that it's still sort-of a subtle issue but it's getting better.
you should really read these articles more closely.
JL
@liz,
i think i have a facebook account somewhere, but to be honest it's not worth the hassle of dealing with just to post something on huffpo.
JL
Michale,
Maybe a blurb at the end of the commentary stating, Author replies to all comments at http://www.chrisweigant.com or words to that effect..
Or, please visit http://www.chrisweigant.com for a sincerely no-holds-barred fun discussion with the author!
Might piss off the HuffPoop gods, though... :D
Who really cares? :)
As for the notepad, I'm seriously thinking of ditching my desktop in favour of a more mobile device. Any suggestions that won't drastically reduce my screen space because, you know, I like a big screen ...
Joshua,
i think i have a facebook account somewhere, but to be honest it's not worth the hassle of dealing with just to post something on huffpo.
I fully realize that, NOW!
If it was just to post something on HP, I would never have considered it. But, as I said, there was one HP blogger in particular who I honestly loved the back and forth with; he closed down his own blog site and HP was all that was left; so that's why I even gave a thought at all to opening a facebook account; a decision I will now forever regret ...
Michale[4],
10 Elizabeth Miller wrote:[Comment is awaiting moderation. Please forgive us for the delay.]
This is the response that is posted in lieu of my comment #10 in reply to your comment #4.
As soon as I remember what I said, I'll try re-posting! What's going on!?
OH, I just figured out what the problem is ... I reposted your CW link and added one of my own!
It'll show up eventually ... I guess.
That's actually pretty funny. Heh.
If Nevada is the Rodney Dangerfield of early states, then which state is the Crusty Old Dean?
I think the CW picks are very reasonable, but I lean towards Hillary squeaking a win in Nevada.
I believe saint Cajetan is the patron of prognosticators under his gamblers franchise. Lighting a candle might help, if you follow basic safety protocols. Here's a nice one.
http://product-images.highwire.com/5113438/img0018.jpg
Liz,
OH, I just figured out what the problem is ... I reposted your CW link and added one of my own!
Yea, I have done that a couple times.. :D
JL,
you should really read these articles more closely.
Yea, I guess. My eyes kinda glaze over when I read Vanity Fair.. :D
Michale
I believe saint Cajetan is the patron of prognosticators under his gamblers franchise. Lighting a candle might help, if you follow basic safety protocols. Here's a nice one.
http://product-images.highwire.com/5113438/img0018.jpg
Oh look. It's Bob! :D
Michale
JL,
umm, that's not what the article is about.
I didn't say that was what the article was about..
But it DOES show that, at the very least, Hillary intimated it... As you yourself point out, it wouldn't surprise you if Hillary DID say/think that..
But, let's get down to brass tacks..
Do you honestly believe that, in the here and now, that Americans have a problem with a female POTUS??
Or, is it MORE likely that the American people have a problem with HILLARY as POTUS???
Michale
Do you honestly believe that, in the here and now, that Americans have a problem with a female POTUS??
Or, is it MORE likely that the American people have a problem with HILLARY as POTUS???
those are two different questions, each of which has to be answered individually. further, i believe that it's too complicated to be a yes or no question in either case.
in the abstract, i think most US voters are fine with the IDEA of a female president. but when faced with a specific candidate, no matter who it may be, women don't get equal consideration based on their merits and flaws. the situation is certainly better than it was twenty years ago, but just as women still make seventy cents on the dollar compared to men in similar jobs, women start any political race at a slight disadvantage. it's not insurmountable, just a subtle vestige of the past - a slight subconscious unease with someone who may be shorter, curvier, have a higher pitched voice, a slightly different conversation style, what have you. it's not an easy thing to nail down with solid evidence in any specific case, but it does still seem to be present in the general sense among the electorate.
hillary clinton is a very specific case, a person who is polarizing both on the positive and the negative side. deservedly or not, she's become an icon of boomer and gen-x women who feel like their time has come, as well as the target of backlash against the general advances of women in politics. much of this iconic status is completely unrelated to the kind of person or politician she is. so, the right hates her in spite of her strengths, and the left likes her in spite of her weaknesses.
JL
"Vlad," I said, "I've always wanted to know the answer to this question,
And you strike me as the only guy I'm ever gonna meet who can give me an answer,
So lay it on me pal, are there intelligent civilizations out there, other than us?
And if there are, then why haven't they contacted us?"
Vlad looked at me over his glasses. "That is two questions," he said
~peter mulvey
those are two different questions, each of which has to be answered individually. further, i believe that it's too complicated to be a yes or no question in either case.
in the abstract, i think most US voters are fine with the IDEA of a female president. but when faced with a specific candidate, no matter who it may be, women don't get equal consideration based on their merits and flaws. the situation is certainly better than it was twenty years ago, but just as women still make seventy cents on the dollar compared to men in similar jobs, women start any political race at a slight disadvantage. it's not insurmountable, just a subtle vestige of the past - a slight subconscious unease with someone who may be shorter, curvier, have a higher pitched voice, a slightly different conversation style, what have you. it's not an easy thing to nail down with solid evidence in any specific case, but it does still seem to be present in the general sense among the electorate.
hillary clinton is a very specific case, a person who is polarizing both on the positive and the negative side. deservedly or not, she's become an icon of boomer and gen-x women who feel like their time has come, as well as the target of backlash against the general advances of women in politics. much of this iconic status is completely unrelated to the kind of person or politician she is. so, the right hates her in spite of her strengths, and the left likes her in spite of her weaknesses.
So, in other words, Americans are fine with a woman President.
They just don't want THAT woman (Hillary Clinton) as President...
"Vlad," I said, "I've always wanted to know the answer to this question,
And you strike me as the only guy I'm ever gonna meet who can give me an answer,
So lay it on me pal, are there intelligent civilizations out there, other than us?
And if there are, then why haven't they contacted us?"
Vlad looked at me over his glasses. "That is two questions," he said
~peter mulvey
Uhhh... I got nuttin... :D
Michale
you should really read these articles more closely.
You just KNOW that Bashi is gonna love this!! :D heh
Michale
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel."
-Pope Francis
Well, let's take a look at the borders of the Vatican...
https://www.google.com/search?q=Vatican+Walls&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=935&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibs8u984HLAhWG4yYKHXtTAMsQ_AUIBigB`
Hypocrisy much???
Michale
So, in other words, Americans are fine with a woman President.
They just don't want THAT woman (Hillary Clinton) as President...
uh, no. that is two questions.
question 1: female president
people are mostly fine with the idea of a woman president, but less likely to support any specific woman for president than any specific man.
question 2: hillary clinton:
i know you don't like to hear it, but a large percentage of the american people would be quite content to have hillary clinton as president, for varying reasons, some of them valid.
JL
i know you don't like to hear it, but a large percentage of the american people would be quite content to have hillary clinton as president, for varying reasons, some of them valid.
Cite your evidence for a "large percentage"... Or, more accurately, how do you define "large"??
More than 2??
Because, if a "large percentage" of Americans wanted Hillary as POTUS, some relatively unknown socialist from Vermont wouldn't be handing her ass to her..
No??
Michale
So, in other words, Americans are fine with a woman President.
They just don't want THAT woman (Hillary Clinton) as President...
uh, no. that is two questions.
No... They are two statements...
Statements supported by facts...
Michale
I mean, let's face reality..
It's clear that Hillary is hoping that women are simpletons and just vote with their vaginas...
Michale
JL (18)much of this iconic status is completely unrelated to the kind of person or politician she is. so, the right hates her in spite of her strengths, and the left likes her in spite of her weaknesses.
Well said.
I'm starting to see rumblings on various blogs about Bernie's numbers not holding up well once people hear the kinds of attacks it is assumed will be unleashed on him by Republicans, should he win. Right now we have a situation in which Hillary is seen as polarizing and Bernie seen as more likable BUT Hillary's been vilified for years (95% unfairly) and Bernie hasn't been vilified at all. Repubs may be holding their fire for now, but you can be sure they'll unleash at a nuclear level if he becomes the nominee.
The thing we can't really tell yet is how Hillary would start to stack up if it's her versus Cruz, Trump, Rubio etc. and she is able to go full-throttle (i.e. not trying to avoid alienating Bernie's folks). We know the hard-core Hillary haters will keep on hatin', but I suspect a lot of Americans haven't internalized all that -- and if she can barrage the world with positive ads and her opponent is one of these exceedingly unattractive (in different ways) options -- perceptions could change.
LizM -
Sorry 'bout that, comment has now been restored...
-CW
Not that anyone cares I am sure, but I have a Facebook account that I use regularly to both keep in touch with friends and family, AND to make frequent comments on The HuffingtonPost. In fact, I can often be found yelling at my computer "what an idiot" before posting a reasoned, well thought reply to a comment myself. HEH :-)
I'm actually glad that the HuffBook has shut me out. It's not what it used to be.
It's never what it used to be. :)
On a completely unrelated note, solely for SciFi geeks here..
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/map_of_the_week/2013/10/sizes_of_spaceships_in_science_fiction_a_chart.html?wpsrc=theweek
Anyone ever see this?? :D
Michale
@michale,
questions or statements, whichever, they're two different things. also, there's plenty of evidence opposed to your interpretations. for example, the fact that hillary is currently closer to being president than any other woman in history speaks to both issues.
@paula,
agree about sanders - i like him as a candidate and agree with him on many issues, but his ability to overcome political attacks is as yet an unknown quantity. i sincerely hope he has the staying power to win if nominated, and would love to see him nominate a few supreme court justices.
also agree with you on clinton vs. cruz or trump. we don't know yet if current polling is right. if so, rubio is the only republican who leads her head to head in the RCP average. furthermore, i agree that hillary has been the target of so much vitriol that it's hard to pick out the attacks that are valid and supported by evidence from those that are spurious and/or fabricated. i don't know if your 95% figure is right, but it can seem that way at times.
@JM and JFC,
Huffpo really has declined. on those rare occasions i go back there to read an article, the quality seems significantly lower than it was 5 years ago. then again, maybe that's just my perception.
JL
John M -
I was serious. Can you head over to HuffPost and post a comment to Fran Moore's comment? I would really appreciate it. Let her know I've answered her over here, in the first comment in the whole thread...
Thanks!
-CW
I was serious. Can you head over to HuffPost and post a comment to Fran Moore's comment? I would really appreciate it. Let her know I've answered her over here, in the first comment in the whole thread...
Done.. :D
No guarantee it lasts, though. heh
Michale
Right now we have a situation in which Hillary is seen as polarizing and Bernie seen as more likable BUT Hillary's been vilified for years (95% unfairly) and Bernie hasn't been vilified at all.
Except by Team Clinton...
Hillary's problem is that Independents despise her as much as Republicans do..
That is why Clinton is the most flawed Democrat candidate...
Michale
Michale,
Your comment at HP worked and we may soon have a new member of Weigantia ...
Hillary's problem is that Independents despise her as much as Republicans do..
if so, they must despise trump more, because hillary still edges trump at the moment.
@liz,
hooray! inviting smart commentators of all stripes to cross over should probably be a more regular practice among regulars who still frequent HP. i've just been scrolling the past few posts, and a number of people there have made decent points. not decent enough to make me want to start sharing my data with facebook again, but decent nonetheless.
JL
I agree Joshua ... I would invite more myself but, for some reason I have never been able to figure out, I'm not able to comment even with a facebook account??
Anyway, you should keep an eye on things there ...
Your comment at HP worked and we may soon have a new member of Weigantia ...
Woot!!! :D
I just wonder how long it is before some HP moderator spews their espresso and says, "Holy frak, Michale's back!!!" heh :D
Michale
Yep, it sure looks like we'll have a new Weigantian soon.. :D
I'll be on my best behavior.. :D
Michale
if so, they must despise trump more, because hillary still edges trump at the moment.
I doubt many true Independents or NPAs are part and parcel to the primary process..
I don't know about any other states (I think it was brought up here once but can't recall) but in FL, registered Independents aren't ALLOWED to vote in primaries...
In other words, the polls conducted AFTER the primaries are the best indication of which way Independents will jump..
And I'll be gabberflasted if many swing towards Hillary...
Michale
I doubt many true Independents or NPAs are part and parcel to the primary process..
the polls are of all registered or likely voters, not just those voting in primaries. Fox, until recently the only polling service to give trump an edge, has clinton up by 5 head-to-head on february 15-17. here's all the trump v. clinton data thus far:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls
I'll be on my best behavior.. :D
Yes, well, you always are ... :)
Nate Silver calls the Silver State 76% a chance that Clinton wins. Just had to write that. Given the number of delegates at stake, it is all about perceptions of momentum and electability.
Michale,
I just wonder how long it is before some HP moderator spews their espresso and says, "Holy frak, Michale's back!!!" heh :D
Actually, absence makes the heart grow fonder, you know. :)
Besides, I doubt there is any institutional memory at HuffPost.
TS,
That's funny... Cuz Salon just stated that Hillary can't win.. :D
Hillary Clinton just can’t win: Democrats need to accept that only Bernie Sanders can defeat the GOP
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/hillary_clinton_just_cant_win_democrats_need_to_accept_that_only_bernie_sanders_can_defeat_the_gop/
Michale
Actually, absence makes the heart grow fonder, you know. :)
hehehehe :D
Michale
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/19/on-the-eve-of-nevada-caucuses-sanders-takes-a-jab-at-clinton-on-paid-speeches/
I trust that everyone here will join me, AND Bernie, into telling Clinton to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches that got her millions and millions of dollars in speaking fees..
Right?? :D
Michale
Sure, I'd like to read them, too. :)
Michale [36] -
Thank you! It actually worked -- it's still up!
[I think they've forgotten about you... heh]
Anyway, mucho thanks.
-CW
Fran Moore -
[In the hopes you'll see my reply to your reply at HuffPost...]
Yeah, I might have been interested in Facebook, but I created my own site, my own blog, with my own name on it. I thought that was good enough, and there was no reason to give FB all my personal information just to answer people on HuffPost. I complained about this at the time, but it did no good.
I do miss chatting with HP commenters, though. Many of the regulars here started as HP commenters, and we'd have epic back-and-forths over there, before the AOL-ization occurred.
I welcome you to this site, and invite you to check it out -- I post here every day instead of just M/W/F, and you never have to hunt around the site for my most recent posts!
:-)
In any case, thanks for the kind words...
-CW
nypoet22 [40] (and LizM) -
That is an excellent idea. Everyone here with FB accounts should occasionally drop a teaser link at HuffPost to entice more new readers!
I have to say, this role used to be provided in an incredible way with unrelenting passion by our very own LizM.
Many moons ago, LizM waged a one-woman PR war at HuffPost for a LONG time, continually pointing people to this site in post after post after post. She convinced more people to check the site out than anyone, ever, and that includes ME.
I never asked her to do this for me, but she continued her campaign right up until the FB era. She and I both tried to get HP to relent about the new requirement, to no avail.
I not only never asked to do all of this, I also (shamefully) never properly acknowledged or thanked her for her service.
So I make amends now. I miss LizM's "You should really check out the reality-based commentary over at chrisweigant.com" on all those articles, in HuffPost threads. I miss the traffic that came over as a direct result.
So, LizM, our humble thanks! We hereby dub thee "CW PR Queen Extraordinaire."
To everyone else with a FB page... plug the site at HP! Plug the Tuesday and Thursday articles they don't see!
This is an election year, and interest in political blogging should be at an all-time high (if history is any guide), so now is indeed the time for such an effort!
:-)
-CW
Betfair is calling it 62% for Clinton - middle position between Silver and the polls. It's a very small market, so I don't put a lot of weight on it. I still stand by my earlier prediction that Clinton will win...while admitting it's pretty close to a coin toss.
Well, looks like my Dem percentage is about to go down...
Hillary wins Nevada, according to the networks...
SC results in an hour or two.
-CW
CW -
We both missed on our Nevada picks but you're looking good for SC based on the early exit polls...
Jebbie's out!
12th to go... and then there were 5...
-CW
Chris,
I'm speechless ...
Well, that passed.
Can we shorten that title to QE3? :)
Seriously, your very kind words brought back a flood of fond memories and also reminds why the whole HP-FB thing was so damned distressing. It was my distinct pleasure to invite the best HP commenters to participate here, the best reality-based participatory political blog on the internets, and that is what I have truly missed the most since my HP commenting privileges finally ceased.
I echo your suggestion to any of us here who still comment over at HP to keep your eyes out for people who you think would appreciate the blessings of CW.com - and, not just those who comment on Chris's blog there but, wherever you run into them, on any article. I promise to do my part and keep an eye on things over there as well and just ask Michale to take care of the invites.
Because, the more, the merrier, I always say!
LizM -
:-)
-CW
Nice...I won the Nevada coin toss!
Turning to S.C. Who will Jeb._ throw his support to? Will it matter? Trump wins all the delegates (first round bound) with 32% of the vote. SC is technically not a winner take all state.
Well, looks like I went 0-for-1 on the Dem side, but 3-for-3 for the GOP.
I was surprised that Rubio actually pulled off 2nd place, I thought that was one of those wild-eyed guesses...
-CW
Turning to S.C. Who will Jeb._ throw his support to? Will it matter? Trump wins all the delegates (first round bound) with 32% of the vote. SC is technically not a winner take all state.
Conventional wisdom says that Bush will back Rubio...
Michale