Oh, and based on recent statements, I wouldn’t be shocked if, when Warren drops out, she throws her support to Klobuchar. (Whose speech last night was great and worth listening to. “I’m Amy Klobuchar, and I’m going to beat Donald Trump!”)
It's dangerous to overinterpret 2 caucus/primary results, but it seems like things are shaking out pretty much as expected: a clear distinction between left-ish candidates (where Sanders has prevailed over Warren) and more "centrist" candidates (where Klobuchar and Buttigieg are the last 2 standing). Will be interesting to see what happens on Super Tuesday when Bloomberg shows up.
IMO, Sanders has won the Sanders/Warren race, but it's still unclear what's going to happen with Buttigieg/Klobuchar.
Posts: 33214 | Location: West: North and South! | Registered: 20 April 2005
Originally posted by QuirtEvans: Side note: there appears to be a reasonably high correlation between pundits I think are smart and worth listening to and those Steve thinks are worthless and should go away,
Believe as you like, but if Nate says Klobuchar will win 40 states I recommend you go out and vote anyway, just in case he's making stuff up.
Like he did last time.
-------------------------------- Life is short. Play with your dog.
Posts: 29206 | Location: Yorba Linda, CA | Registered: 23 April 2005
There is a difference between making stuff up and being wrong.
Polling is an inexact science, like weather forecasting. (And like most kinds of extrapolation.) I'm quite sure that, despite the imprecision, you check the weather forecast sometimes, even knowing that weather forecasters sometimes get it horribly wrong.