Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2016, 03:46:32 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 515
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 538 taking Johnson/Weld seriously on: May 25, 2016, 05:47:36 pm
Quote
But that was the 90s, back before most of us in the interior of the country had ever even seen an avocado let alone mashed it up on toast.

Wut?

This was mostly a joke, but it's true that your local supermarket probably didn't sell avocados if you lived in the Midwest in the 90's.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 538 taking Johnson/Weld seriously on: May 25, 2016, 11:40:12 am
Enten is good at tweeting but not so great at predicting elections.

Clare Malone wrote this article (though Enten did contribute research).
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie Sanders Requests Kentucky Recanvassing on: May 24, 2016, 02:28:03 pm
If the primary were winner take all, this would be sensible, but he'll only get one additional delegate if he wins.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver eats crow on: May 18, 2016, 06:04:15 pm
He deserves credit for at least acknowledging his mistakes and making an effort to improve, as opposed to getting defensive and more stubborn as so many do in this situation.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 538: Pennsylvania could be the tipping-point state as early as this year on: May 18, 2016, 02:30:25 pm
I agree that Pennsylvania is more winnable for Trump than Virginia or Colorado (for the reasons the article states), but I am skeptical that Florida is more winnable for Trump than Pennsylvania.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: So... in which states did Perot hurt Clinton in 1992? on: May 18, 2016, 12:13:16 pm
Also many "independents" weren't closet Republicans in 1992 like they are now. That's more a phenomenon that started with the tea party.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: So... in which states did Perot hurt Clinton in 1992? on: May 18, 2016, 12:08:26 pm
A few other things to keep in mind regarding Perot:

He was out of the race for several months and Clinton maintained a strong lead in the polls throughout this entire time. When he reentered the race, the first polls after his reentry didn't show Clinton's lead at all diminished. This, along with the exit polls also showing Perot's supporters would have broken evenly between the two supports the idea that Perot didn't hurt (or help) Clinton or Bush more than the other.

I also did a logistic regression analysis in a seperate thread showing that the Democratic "trend" at the statewide level in Atlas speak in 1992 wasn't correlated at all with Perot's percentage of the vote, which is what we would expect to see if Perot took votes disproportionately from Bush.

Though someone mentioned having looked further into the county results and did see a correlation there. Also, of the counties Perot won in 1992, all but three went on to vote for Dole in 1996 and all voted for Bush in 1988. So, that supports the idea that he possibly did take more votes from Bush overall.

Ideologically Perot was between Bush and Clinton, though he focused on specific issues such as trade and the deficit with which he disagreed with both candidates. His economic plan was pretty radical and would have included much larger tax increases than Clinton proposed, as well as sharp spending cuts. He probably did cost Bush some votes among those who voted for Buchanan in the primaries, but also likely had appeal to Jerry Brown's and Paul Tsongas's supporters who were disaffected with Clinton also.

Voter turnout was much higher in 1992 than in either 1988 or 1996, suggesting many Perot voters wouldn't have voted at all if he wasn't in the race.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Oregon primary bellwether counties on: May 17, 2016, 10:25:39 pm
Dems since 1992--

Baker
Clackamas
Clatsop
Curry
Deschutes   
Gilliam
Grant
Hood River   
Jackson
Jefferson
Josephine
Lane
Lincoln
Marion
Multnomah
Polk
Union
Wallowa
Wasco
Washington
Yamhill   

GOP--

Every county
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Serious question about the Oregon primary on: May 17, 2016, 02:50:44 pm
Brown's sexuality is very rarely mentioned in the media, so I highly doubt this will be much on the mind of voters.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Was choosing Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention a masterstroke? on: May 16, 2016, 05:00:09 pm
There is almost no correlation historically between the "trend" in a state and a party holding its convention there. In fact for the Republicans, it is a slightly negative correlation. I could make a joke about how seeing Republicans up close and personal tends to repel voters, but I'll pass.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/republicans-choice-to-hold-2016-convention-in-cleveland-probably-wont-help-them-in-ohio/
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: West Virginia primary bellwether counties on: May 14, 2016, 11:31:38 pm
Bellwether's pick the winners. Bernie ain't winnin'

True, though if that's our criteria 2008 already invalidated it. For these threads I have been going by bellwethers for the state winner, not the national winner. That would be an interesting project as well, though.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Process / Re: What happens when no candidate gets to 270 and the House has changed parties? on: May 12, 2016, 10:48:37 am
The new House votes, but keep in mind that each state delegation gets one vote.

So in 2017, even if Democrats win a narrow House majority, there is a good chance that the GOP will still control a majority of state delegations.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Process / Re: No running mate? on: May 12, 2016, 10:43:42 am
Funny thing: you can also have a number of running-mates, varying state by state.

Yep, in fact the individual state parties could even have different presidential candidates running in each state. The Whig party tried this in 1836, hoping that collectively they could win a majority between the several regional candidates and then pick one when the Electoral College convened, but they failed to accumulate enough electoral votes.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / West Virginia primary bellwether counties on: May 10, 2016, 06:11:10 pm
Neither party has had a primary that was anything but a clean sweep of counties since 1992 except of course for the Democrats in 2012.

So it'll be neat to finally again have a competitive West Virginia primary not involving convicted felons.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Proof positive that Trump is racist... on: May 07, 2016, 10:49:31 am
I suppose he loves the Chinese too, because they have great food.

Sorry, newbies (as in, anyone who has been here less than about ten years) probably won't get the joke, but hopefully some will.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Who are the most famous losing candidates (who were never President?) on: May 06, 2016, 03:35:17 pm
Henry Clay, who might have been the most influential political figure of the first half of the 1800's, despite never winning his Presidential bids.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / New Clinton vs. Trump projection on: May 06, 2016, 12:25:28 pm
This is based on data from the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll referenced here:

http://cookpolitical.com/story/9588

As compared to Obama in 2012, Clinton does a net of fourteen points better with whites, so using fivethirtyeight's nifty demographic electoral calculator located here:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

I assumed that Clinton's percentage will increase by ten points among college eduated whites, and by three points among non college educated whites, which should come out to about a seven point increase overall since college educated whites are projected to be a larger share of the overall electorate. So Clinton wins college educated whites with 54 percent of the vote (Romney won them with 56 percent in 2012), while Trump wins non college educated whites with 59 percent of the vote (Romney got 62 percent).

Clinton did ten points worse net with blacks, so I dropped her to 88 percent of the black vote, as compared to Obama's 93 percent.

Clinton does four points better net with Hispanics, so I bumped her to 73 percent of the vote as compared to Obama's 71 percent.

I assumed Asians/other also move four points net toward Clinton, giving her 69 percent of their votes as opposed to Obama's 67 percent.

I copied and pasted the numbers below. Apologies for the formatting; first number is Clinton percentage, second is Trump.

U.S.      
56.3%
42.0%

Ala.   
44.0%
54.9%

Alaska   
46.4%
49.2%

Ariz.   
50.7%
47.5%

Ark.   
43.1%
54.3%

Calif.   
64.3%
33.1%

Colo.   
57.1%
40.6%

Conn.   
63.7%
35.1%

Del.      
62.9%
35.7%

D.C.   
88.6%
9.6%

Fla.   
55.3%
43.8%

Ga.   
50.9%
47.9%

Hawaii   
72.7%
25.7%

Idaho      
39.0%
58.1%

Ill.   
62.1%
36.3%

Ind.      
50.3%
47.8%

Iowa      
57.4%
40.8%

Kan.   
45.3%
52.4%

Ky.      
43.9%
54.4%

La.   
46.1%
52.3%

Maine      
61.5%
35.8%

Md.   
65.8%
32.1%

Mass.      
65.9%
32.3%

Mich.   
58.8%
40.1%

Minn.   
58.1%
39.5%

Miss.   
48.0%
51.1%

Mo.   
49.8%
48.4%

Mont.   
48.0%
49.1%

Neb.   
45.0%
52.8%

Nev.   
57.0%
41.0%

N.H.   
57.7%
40.6%

N.J.   
62.6%
36.3%

N.M.   
57.4%
38.4%

N.Y.   
67.4%
31.2%

N.C.   
53.2%
45.6%

N.D.   
46.1%
50.9%

Ohio   
55.5%
42.9%

Okla.   
40.6%
59.4%

Ore.      
59.1%
37.2%

Pa.   
57.7%
40.8%

R.I.   
66.9%
31.1%

S.C.   
49.3%
49.4%

S.D.   
46.9%
50.8%

Tenn.   
45.4%
53.2%

Texas      
48.4%
50.2%

Utah      
33.5%
64.0%

Vt.   
69.6%
28.0%

Va.   
56.5%
42.0%

Wash.   
60.8%
36.6%

W.Va.   
42.0%
55.8%

Wis.      
57.8%
40.9%

Wyo.   
35.9%
60.5%

So Hillary wins 396-142, flipping North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska 2nd district, and Arizona from 2012.

I have to admit that I think this is overly optimistic for Hillary, especially among college educated whites. But if she really does only lose whites by 6 percent overall, she'd almost certainly have to win the college educated white vote decisively.

Another potential wildcard is turnout. I assumed that all groups would turn out at the same rate as they did in 2012. This could prove to be very wrong; Hispanic turnout in particular is likely to surge, and possibly also non college educated white voters. Black turnout could be down a bit with Obama off the ballot. But for now, I'm leaving them as is, at least until we get a better sense of how turnout is likely to change this year.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Trump is - and always has been - the best hope for the GOP in November on: May 05, 2016, 05:18:02 pm
The first is ROCK SOLID.  This is the group responsible for overcoming the Sanders insurgency and seeing Clinton through to the nomination, and they will show up for Clinton in November.  They represent a solid 35% of the electorate.  Actually, they are growing, due to changing demographics.
but Trump will win over plenty of truck drivers, steelworkers, auto workers, prison guards, etc. who are registered Democrats but not ideologically married to Democratic orthodoxy.

Yeah because they were going to vote for the black socialist

Exactly. It's really hard to visualize how anyone who voted for Obama twice switches to Trump.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: A moment of reflection on: May 05, 2016, 03:04:03 pm
Politically, I really don't think Trump is that worse than Cruz or Rubio. However, it is still a giant WTF a real-life troll became a major party presumptive presidential nominee.

He is. There is a very serious difference between being a religious conservative and deliberately and extensively using racism and xenophobia for political means. Cruz, were he to win, would present a temporary, but short-lived, set-back to progress. Trump, if he wins, would through the world back for decades, if not centuries.

Agreed. This is as bad as if Pat Buchanan in 1996 or George Wallace in 1972 had succeeded in winning their party's nominations. On the left, the nearest equivalent would be Jesse Jackson in 1988 or Al Sharpton in 2004.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: A moment of reflection on: May 05, 2016, 02:50:49 pm
Also, Al, winning with 40 percent of the vote is not a landslide by any reasonable definition. Even if you go by margin of victory (13 percent over his nearest competitor), he is winning by a narrower margin than Clinton is on the Democratic side, and narrower than the vast majority of nominees have won their primaries by. Obviously that will widen some, but I highly doubt he can catch McCain's 47 percent nationally in 2008 and thus will have the lowest percentage of the primary popular vote for any GOP nominee in the modern era (since 1972, when primaries became the, ahem, primary determinant of the nominee).
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: #DropOutHillary is trending worldwide on Twitter on: May 04, 2016, 06:12:11 pm
She has 12 million "likes" in the form of votes so far, so until and unless this surpassess that total, I'll pay it no notice.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of 538's initial nomination odds on: May 04, 2016, 05:12:49 pm
They gave higher odds for 'Field' than I probably would have given at the time. 538 should not be condemned any more than political punditry as a whole for missing this black swan event.

Yes, and since "field" ended up winning, they were more right than most. Smiley
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: A moment of reflection on: May 04, 2016, 03:44:53 pm
Yes, indeed a sad day for America, and for the world given our position within it.

Keep in mind, though, before drawing any great conclusions about what this all "means", that he's only gotten a little over 10 million votes in a country of about 320 million.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: So the Lichtman Test so far on: May 04, 2016, 10:38:47 am
My understanding of key 2 is that the losing candidate has to receive at least 1/3 of the delegate votes at the convention itself (as opposed to just winning at least 1/3 of the pledged delegates in the primaries). If Sanders drops out after June 7, therefore, this key could still be turned for the Dems and give them the required 8 keys to win, if many of his delegates end up actually voting for Clinton at the convention.

Or maybe we need an additional scale for someone as unpopular as Trump....he counts as double false for key 13.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Indiana primary bellwether counties on: May 03, 2016, 04:58:18 pm
Not much to see here: since 1992, only the 2000 and 2008 Dem primaries weren't clean sweeps. So on the Republican side every county has voted for the statewide winner since then, while for the Dems, only the following counties didn't vote for the statewide winner every time:

Allen
Boone
Elkhart
Hamilton
Lake
Marion
Monroe
St. Joseph
Sullivan
Tippecanoe
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 515


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines