Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 25, 2016, 11:58:56 pm
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 ... 517
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should Hillary renominate Garland on: August 24, 2016, 10:58:56 pm
If Hillary won, why wouldn't the Senate just confirm Garland before she takes office?

They would have just spend a whole year saying the president shouldn't get to choose the Supreme Court member in his final year in office.


Exactly. The Democrats could filibuster and throw their words back in their face.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should Hillary renominate Garland on: August 24, 2016, 10:57:39 pm
If Republicans keep the Senate, yes. Otherwise she should choose someone younger and more progressive.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's "realistic" pickups on: August 24, 2016, 05:25:47 pm
Iowa and Ohio.

The Hispanic vote will sink Trump in Florida and Nevada, even if the race tightens.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump Campaign pushing ahead with its plan to win NY on: August 24, 2016, 01:43:58 pm
If he really invests there, he could as well in his home state of New York as Romney did in his home state of Massachusetts....maybe.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How big does Trump's popular vote victory have to be to win the electoral vote? on: August 24, 2016, 01:36:06 pm
The fact that the national polls and state polls are so far apart makes it more likely that one or the other is wrong than that there's really that much of a disparity.

My money is on the national polls, since so many more voters have been surveyed in the state polls.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Most likely Trump victory map according to Election Graphs on: August 24, 2016, 01:04:12 pm
This is Trump's victory map.  Trump ain't taking any of the red-colored states below.  No way, no how:



Of course, Trump isn't winning anyway.

He has a better chance in New Hampshire or in Maine's second district than in Colorado, but otherwise I agree. He could get to 270 exactly if he won both but didn't win CO.

If Trump won NH but lost ME-02 and CO, it would be fascinating to see what the "never Trump" members of Congress would do in the House vote.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Missouri 2008 on: August 24, 2016, 12:47:42 pm
I didn't care at the time because Obama won so decisively, but why wasn't there a recount here?

Obama probably felt the same way you did. If the state's result doesn't affect the national outcome, it would look like sour grapes to contest the result in a close state.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: SHOCKER: Trump donated $100,000 to Clinton Foundation. PAY FOR PLAY??? on: August 24, 2016, 12:45:45 pm
Ah, but see, he alone knows how to fix it, since he has intimate knowledge of how corrupt the system is by virtue of having been part of the corruption himself.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Question of the day: Does Nate Silver roam Atlas's 2016 Board? on: August 24, 2016, 12:41:09 pm
I doubt Nate, Harry, Clare, Farai, Jody or Micah have much time to spend on sites besides their own (and talking about politics for a living, they might well prefer other activities during their free time than more talking about politics), but they are certainly aware of the site itself as they cite it as a source often for their data.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary could be only the 4th person to win all 13 original colonies on: August 24, 2016, 12:34:23 pm
Georgia is a coin flip and will come down to turnout (don't forget the state has a growing Hispanic population in addition to the large black population).

She probably won't win South Carolina, but even coming within 5% would be a great result for a Democrat. I agree that it's more "in play" than states often listed as such like Wisconsin and Michigan.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Mike Rowe has some very passionate feelings about "uneducated" trump voters on: August 23, 2016, 04:45:35 pm
Good points, Beet. I assume given Hillary's acknowledgement of the ability to get a good job without a degree in contrast to the journalists that Rowe criticizes, and given her detailed proposals to solve the very problems he cites, and in contrast to Trump's belittlement of these people as "the poorly educated" that he must be a Clinton supporter. Wink
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why is Gary Johnson polling at 7-16% but Stein is at 1-2%? on: August 23, 2016, 02:53:24 pm
There are way more never-Trump Republicans than never-Clinton Democrats, and Johnson is much more experienced and thus a more likely placeholder than Stein for the "I hate them both and just want to cast a protest vote" swing voters.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Mike Rowe has some very passionate feelings about "uneducated" trump voters on: August 23, 2016, 02:36:55 pm
Black voters without a college degree don't vote differently than those with a degree; that's the difference that makes Rowe's comparison incorrect. Whites are the only racial group for which level of education is predictive of voting behavior.

Also, it's Trump's own words that his voters are "poorly educated". Does the media have an obligation to not report on Trump's own verbiage?

The remainder of his points are quite valid regarding the value of a degree and what being "educated" means, but he's off base in suggesting that journalists are being racist/classist in this.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: New Hampshire 1988-1992 on: August 22, 2016, 10:54:53 am
New Hampshire's economy was hit especially hard by the early 90's recession.
15  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Michigan -- likely troubles for Republican Representatives? on: August 19, 2016, 11:12:24 am
Fred Upton in the 6th district is one to keep an eye on, though he has cultivated a moderate image.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: When D.C. voted 92.5-6.5 for Obama in 2008, it trended R on: August 16, 2016, 11:44:21 pm
The "trend" calculation breaks down in extreme cases such as this. It simply calculates whether the nation as a whole swung toward one party more than the state did, but the more lopsided the totals are, the harder it is to continue to swing toward the majority party, as there are fewer votes to be gained.

A alternative way to calculate it to avoid this issue would be to determine the percentage of votes that swung of those who could possibly swing. In other words, a drop from 10 percent of the vote to 5 percent would be considered as much of a swing as a drop from 20 percent to 10 percent, instead of only half as much.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CPD announces the 5 qualifying polls to make the debate stage on: August 15, 2016, 05:04:16 pm
One thing to keep in mind is that Perot technically didn't meet the threshold in 1992 but was still invited into the debates. I think he was at 12 percent or so average at the time (too lazy to look it up right now), and the 15 percent standard did exist then also. In 1996 however he was excluded as he was polling quite a bit lower.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Process / Re: Opinion of Electoral Vote Allocation by Congressional District on: August 11, 2016, 11:37:29 am
B) Sure, the Electoral College might elect a loser every once in a while but it shows the importance of having a diverse electorate and appealing to people in many states. One easy fix I have for this is so, when nobody gets 270 EVs, the winner of the popular vote wins instead. That would reduce the already low probability of an EC win PV loss
To be fair, though, someone (such as Bush in 2000) who was a popular vote loser under our current system might not have been a popular vote loser under a popular vote-based system due to the fact that a popular vote-based system might have caused Presidential candidates to conduct different campaigns, have different campaign themes and messages, et cetera. Indeed, here is a good FiveThirtyEight.com article about this Smiley:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/would-al-gore-have-won-in-2000-without-the-electoral-college/

Also, though, what about if the popular vote is an exact tie? Wink

In addition to this, though, if the Electoral College should go (which is the argument that some people are making), then why exactly shouldn't the U.S. Senate go as well? After all, both the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate favor smaller U.S. states (to some extent).

That article explains perfectly why the popular vote would be a preferable system to the Electoral College. Candidates would focus on campaigning and advertising across the entire country, instead of just in swing states. The vast majority of America is currently ignored in Presidential campaigns, and the incentive to tailor policy positions to swing states would be removed.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sabato Crystal Ball Megathread: Latest NH to Likely D on: August 10, 2016, 04:59:25 pm
I admire that he's forcing himself to make a call one way or another on every state.

Though he does allow toss ups for other races besides President, so it doesn't make sense to consider those not "cop-outs".
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary's EV Ceiling on: August 09, 2016, 03:14:52 pm
The Fivethirtyeight polls-plus model gives all of the red states below at least a 10 percent chance of voting for Clinton. This map would produce a 451-87 Clinton victory.

21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican foreign policy experts detest Trump on: August 08, 2016, 04:39:57 pm
Not understanding why we can't just use nuclear weapons on everyone who looks crosswise at us is kinda disqualifying, yeah.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Romney actually won the popular vote ... on: August 03, 2016, 09:24:00 am
On the other hand, I'd argue the fact that even if Romney had by some miracle won California and its 55 electoral votes (maybe LA and SF both get hit by major earthquakes on Election Day or something) he still would've lost the election shows that it wasn't that close.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Post legal question brought to light on: July 26, 2016, 02:06:50 pm
Yet the billions of dollars worth of free media coverage given to Trump (dwarfing that given to all other candidates combined) don't constitute a campaign contribution?
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Things Clinton Democrats don't seem to get on: July 26, 2016, 11:55:57 am
Beet, I agree with many of your points about Democratic failures to communicate effectively with the white working class in particular. However, our country is changing and we simply cannot abide by the demands of so many of Trump's supporters. The direction the party is moving in is necessary and right IMO.

Let's see how the communication problem looks after this week's convention.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 538 Model Megathread on: July 26, 2016, 11:35:32 am
As I understand it, the difference between now-cast and polls-only is that polls-only assumes some regression to the mean between now and November, thus she is still ahead because it considers the polls more likely to move in Clinton's direction between now and then than it does Trump's. It also values higher quality, older polls (which were more favorable to Clinton) over lower quality, newer polls that favor Trump (you may notice that the more highly rated pollsters, wisely IMO, are avoiding polling between conventions).

Now-cast puts more of a premium on recent polls than on polls with a better track record, and assumes the election is today and thus no further movement can occur.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 517


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines