Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2014, 05:36:08 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 190
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: President Obama approval poll on: November 21, 2014, 11:50:06 pm
It will be interesting to see where Obama's actual approval rating is in a week. Will it go up or down after the immigration announcement? I am going to guess a tiny bit up.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 21, 2014, 11:47:56 pm
How does one define 'protect the border'?  We already have record number of agents and immigration is already at a net zero. Plus almost half of the illegal immigrants flew here and overstayed their visas. The 'secure the border first' thing is a red herring. But even still the Senate comprehensive bill threw a few more billion at the border to appease, so why wasn't that good enough?

3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 21, 2014, 03:39:32 pm
If the GOP is really upset about this then pass a bill to deal with the undocumented. They can either find a path to legal status or appropriate funds (2012 study estimated to be $285B) to deport them all. Those are their two choices.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary advisor: Bush-Portman ticket could doom Dems in 2016 on: November 21, 2014, 03:31:53 pm
If by some miracle a pro-path to citizenship Bush made it through the primaries and picked the pro gay marriage Portman, then yes that wold be a strong GE ticket. Clinton could pick one of the VA Senators and then you could have a weird situation where FL,VA and OH (where most of the money in 2012 was spent) all moved out of the tipping point state category and the fight would be for CO, IA, NH, NV, WI and maybe NC (depending on how AAs trend).

5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb launches exploratory committee! on: November 20, 2014, 07:19:15 pm
Webb can have some appeal but he is going to have to deal with a couple of issues. One is that he voted against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, essentially being the deciding vote killing the Bill (which puts him to the right of GW Bush). The other is that he has spoken out against affirmative action.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / NBC Poll: '2016 Field Is Crowded -- and Mostly Unpopular' on: November 20, 2014, 01:17:43 pm
Positive/Negative ratings for the 2016ers from new NBC/Wapo poll

Among all respondents:

    Ben Carson 17%-7% (+10)
    Elizabeth Warren 23%-17% (+6)
    Hillary Clinton 43%-40% (+3)
    Rand Paul 26%-23% (+3)
    Marco Rubio 21%-19% (+2)
    Mike Huckabee 25%-24% (+1)
    Scott Walker 15%-14% (+1)
    John Kasich 11%-10% (+1)
    Chris Christie 29%-29% (even)
    Joe Biden 35%-38% (-3)
    Jeb Bush 26%-33% (-7)
    Rick Perry 20%-29% (-9)
    Ted Cruz 16%-26% (-10)

Among Democrats:

    Hillary Clinton 78%-5% (+73)
    Joe Biden 62%-9% (+52)
    Elizabeth Warren 36%-6% (+30)

Among Republicans

    Huckabee 52%-8% (+44)
    Rand Paul 48%-6% (+42)
    Jeb Bush 44%-12% (+32)
    Ben Carson 33%-2% (+31)
    Marco Rubio 37%-7% (+30)
    Scott Walker 29%-2% (+27)
    Chris Christie 40%-19% (+21)
    Rick Perry 33%-13% (+20)
    John Kasich 23%-6% (+17)
    Ted Cruz 27%-12% (+15)

And their analysis:
Quote
America, these are your presidential candidates. And, so far, you don’t like ‘em that much.

For all the preparation and jockeying for the 2016 presidential campaign that’s taken place more than a year before the nomination process formally begins, most of the top White House contenders aren’t enjoying high ratings among the American public. Even the most positively-viewed potential candidates get nearly as much opposition as support, according to the latest NBC News/WSJ poll.

And, in a deeply polarized political climate, none of more than a dozen potential candidates asked about in the poll are close to having significant crossover appeal with the opposite political party.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kasich attacks Walker for ignoring facts and being too partisan on: November 20, 2014, 12:49:25 pm
Kasich would be a good GE candidate who just won really big in OH. However he is:
- pro bipartisanship and compromise
- for expanding Medicare under Obamacare
- open to path to citizenship for undocumented
- pro Common Core

That won't go great with the core base of the party, and if Bush and/or Christie are in the race, then there will be a fight for the moderate voters (who are outnumbered by the conservatives to begin with)
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: FiveThirtyEight: Clinton probably can't expand 2016 map; GA/AZ not trending blue on: November 19, 2014, 06:04:51 pm
Let's not forget that Obama got 43% of whites in 2008. The simple fact is that we really don't know how things will look for a while, but Hillary doing better than Obama's 2012 performance is not only reasonable but probably likely. How much better is a question mark but getting into the Gore/Kerry/Obama 2008 range is certainly not crazy talk.

But my point was that if you game out all the Hillary scenarios, her team should look at at 8% PV possibility ala 2008 and see what states go into play. Especially this far out, they are blue-skying it. And as noted by the Hillary team, this is more to do with making the GOP play defense. That is why Obama stayed in NC until the end in 2012 (forcing the GOP to spend more there then the Dems because it was a must win state for them)
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: History shows Hillary unlikely to win on: November 19, 2014, 04:30:13 pm
Voters will not want a third Obama term.

He's running again? I guess the GOP is right and he has complete disregard for the constitution. Then again he still has to get past Hillary in the primary.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: FiveThirtyEight: Clinton probably can't expand 2016 map; GA/AZ not trending blue on: November 19, 2014, 04:14:36 pm
Here is a reasonably realistic scenario.
- Whites down to 69% of total vote (Blacks same as 2012, Asian, Hispanic and other up 1% each)
- Hillary gets same margins with whites and blacks as Gore
- Hillary gets same margins with Latino, Asian and Other as Obama (2012)

Then Hillary will win PV by 7.8% (a bit more than Obama 2004). So in that scenario she would carry all the Obama 2012 states plus NC and at least one other state, maybe two.

So 538 is definitely strawmanning here. The Clinton strategist quoted at TPM specifically said none of these 'expand' states could be tipping points. But in a 2008 like wave election something is going to fal beyond the 2012 battlegrounds, so might as well dip your toe in and see what you can do.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What will be the next Amendment? on: November 19, 2014, 12:56:49 pm
Nothing that is in the party platforms for either party will ever make it. You need serious bipartisan support. If we get a Dem who wins the EV but loses the PV (ala Bush 2000), maybe we could see some kind of amendment that changes the electoral college.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The "Who is running?" tea leaves thread on: November 18, 2014, 09:37:04 pm

Well I imagine she wants to raise some money in Q1 and clear the field, however one would hope she would at least wait until a couple weeks after Obama's state of the union.

Once Hillary announces, she becomes the defacto leader of the Democratic party (at least until she gets a serious challenger).
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The "Who is running?" tea leaves thread on: November 18, 2014, 07:48:27 pm
Huckabee, Santorum and Cruz are scheduled to attend Steve King's "Iowa Freedom Summit" in January

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/18/steve-king-to-host-iowa-freedom-summit-in-january/

Wonder if any of them will have formed an exploratory by then.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 map with 2014 exit poll results? on: November 18, 2014, 05:00:31 pm
If you were to take the total raw vote for House in each state, then the GOP essentially won all presidential battleground states except NH (including PA). So they end up with this map:




GOP: 317
DEM: 221

Of course 129M voted in 2012 and only 75M voted in 2014 so it probably isn't worth reading too much into it, but maybe one could look at this as some kind of ultimate GOP ceiling.

 
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: MI GOP to advance EC reallocation plan on: November 18, 2014, 04:53:43 pm
The core GOP presidential strategy is FL/OH/VA + one more state (with 4 EVs or more). Any election that is very close would probably have MI close enough to get the GOP 4 EVs from this plan. So essentially the GOP would no longer need to fight for that 'plus one' state anymore, and this would result in guaranteeing the GOP win any close/tied election. It is quite devious. But I doubt the gov signs such a plan
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton believes she can expand the '08 map on: November 18, 2014, 02:33:30 pm
This is more electoral trolling than expanding the map. From the article:
Quote
None of these states are likely to be the key 270th electoral vote, Stewart emphasized. The electoral tipping point is still likely to be the traditional battleground states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado and Nevada. But if Democrats can make these other states competitive, it gives them more room for error and forces Republicans to expend resources in places that have traditionally been marked down as wins for them before the campaign even starts.

"If Republicans have to spend resources in Arizona and George to make sure that they win it, that means that they're spending less resources elsewhere," Stewart said. "The further we can play into their field, the more money they're going to have to spend playing defense in places they've normally taken for granted."

I doubt the Dems will spend much on these states and by October 2016 they may not be spending in any of them. The big question mark is Arkansas, where polling has shown surprising strength for Hillary. If that holds, it may be a genuine battleground state.
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama saves net neutrality, orders broadband be classified as vital service on: November 14, 2014, 04:53:43 am
The party that turned 'we built that' into a central theme for their 2012 campaign should be embracing net neutrality. The GOP should be for the millions of entrepreneurs and not just the handful of giant ISPs.

As noted by Entrepreneur.com
Quote
Net neutrality isn’t just about fairness. Should the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allow ISPs to block traffic or offer preferential treatment, this regulation would equate to a business black hole for entrepreneurs and small- to medium-sized businesses. The Internet is a boon for individuals and businesses wanting to build their brand and grow their revenues online. The end of the open web would put smaller players at a severe disadvantage against larger competitors, without millions of dollars to pay ISPs for “fast lane” access.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 14, 2014, 03:14:56 am
...even Romney's 27% was the third or fourth best performance for any Republican in the last 50 years.

Yes but the 2 of the 3 below Romney were because Perot was splitting the vote and the other time was Ford when Latinos were only 1% of the vote. As for Asians, Romney is the all time worst.

GOP LATINO VOTE
Bush Jr (04) 44
Reagan (80) 37
Bush Jr (00) 35
Reagan (84) 34
McCain (08) 31
Bush Sr (88) 30
Romney (12) 27
Bush Sr. (92) 25 (Perot 15)
Dole (96) 21 (Perot 9)
Ford (76) 18

GOP ASIAN VOTE
Bush Sr (92) 55 (Perot 15)
Dole (96) 48 (Perot 8 )
Bush (04) 43
Bush (00) 41
McCain (08) 35
Romney (12) 26

So in terms of the two party vote, Mitt Romney is certainly the all time loser for both Latinos and Asians. In fact they were two of the only groups that swung away from the GOP between 08 and 12. I wonder why.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 14, 2014, 02:54:40 am
Polling against it you say?

Pew Oct. 15-20 (Adults)
"Which comes closer to your view about how to handle undocumented immigrants who are now living in the U.S.? They should not be allowed to stay in this country legally. OR, There should be a way for them to stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met."
Stay:    71    
Not stay:       25    

2012 General Election Voters Exit Poll
"Most Illegal Immigrants Working in U.S. Should Be..."
Offered legal status: 65
Deported: 28

2014 Midterm voters Exit Poll (should be very GOP friendly)
"Most Illegal Immigrants Working in U.S. Should Be..."
Offered legal status: 57
Deported: 39

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 4-7, 2014 (Adults)
 "If Congress does not act to address the immigration issue, do you think Obama should or should not take action on his own through executive orders?"
Should: 52
Should not: 44



20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ben Carson's bizarre campaign crew on: November 13, 2014, 09:49:06 pm
I wonder if Mark Block is available
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 13, 2014, 09:28:30 pm
Romney did not lose in 2012 because of immigration or Hispanics. It might have been closer, but Hispanics had nothing to do with Romney losing OH, IA, NH and Wisconsin and Romney needed at least one of those (OH) even with VA, FL and CO where minority voting had an impact.

Romney would have lost amongst Hispanics anyway for the same reason he lost overall because he offered nothing that could promise a better outcome for low income working and middle class voters. No healthcare alternative, nothing stubstantive on education, didn't endorse minimum wage hike until over a year afterwards and so forth.

Mitt Romney actually did better with whites than Bush Jr. (59% vs 58%). So Romney's loss is entirely down to his extremely poor performance with non-whites. Romney 'self-deportation' and hard anti-immigration positions in the primaries (along with others in the party) were definitely a factor.

The 2013 GOP autopsy noted that the party lost because of how poorly it did with the 'Obama coalition' and mostly talked about communicating better with young voters, women, LGBT and minorities. But there was only one single policy position it endorsed: comprehensive immigration reform. 

The math is simple. If the rise in the non-white % continues into 2016 and if the GOP gets the same 18% as the last two elections, they will need 64% of the remaining white vote to win, something they have only done once in the last 10 elections (Reagan 84).
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 13, 2014, 08:28:49 pm
Message to the GOP...



Obama and the Dems want you to shut down the government over this. They know that the only GOPer to win the PV in the last 6 elections (Bush 2004) got 44% of the Latino vote (by supporting immigration reform) and Mitt Romney got 27% (by pushing 'self-deportation')
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which candidate is most likely to be 2016's Fred Thompson/Rick Perry? on: November 11, 2014, 11:34:55 pm
The 'surprise front-runner flame-out' may have happened in both 2008 and 2012 but it is a rare type. It is someone who wouldn't be talked about at this stage but can jump in the race say 8 months from now out of nowhere and be considered a front-runner. That would require them to have big stature and also to fill a gap in the field. But the field that is shaping up seems to cover the spectrum. So it is hard to imagine anyone really playing that role, unless some major figures flame out by the summer and there are gaps.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It's early but looking at the Lichtman test on: November 11, 2014, 11:25:37 pm
In June Lichtman said that Hillary was down four keys already (1,3,7 and 11) and would be down five (for Key 1) if party lost in midterms (which it did).
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

At the time he didn't consider key 10 (no foreign policy failure) to be 'false' but if one considers the rise of ISIS or the spread of Ebola from Africa to the USA as a failure (both featured prominently in midterm advertising), an argument can be made for a 'false' there. If so, then Hillary is predicted to lose based on the 13 key model.

If not, then she had better hope to not have a serious primary challenge or for the economy to go into recession. Or for one of the Republicans to suddenly gain the charisma of a Ronald Reagan.


On the other side, maybe Obama can crush ISIS by 2016, and maybe he can come up with some major immigration reform deal or even executive action, which could turn keys 11 or 7 into Trues.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Breaking: SCOTUS to consider ACA subsidies on: November 11, 2014, 05:19:46 pm
Interesting additional detail on how the states are reacting to the case:
Quote
Sixteen states, including Virginia, Pennsylvania and Mississippi, have said in a legal brief in a related case that they assumed insurance subsidies would be available even in a federally run exchange. Others, including Arkansas, Delaware and Iowa, said they set up their markets as partnerships with the U.S. with the same assumption.

At least six states have said they don’t want the subsidies for their citizens. Republican officials in Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Nebraska and South Carolina filed a brief in the related case arguing that people in states with federally run exchanges, including theirs, shouldn’t get the subsidies.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-11-11/state-obamacare-strategies-take-shape-as-court-case-looms

So in the end if SCOTUS rules against the Obama admin it is likely that a majority of states will still end up getting the subsidies via workarounds. But there will be a handful of states that take the 'screw you' position and refuse the money and free subsidized healthcare for their citizens. West Virginia is a surprise because they have Dem gov who did expand Medicaid via Obamacare. Unclear how you can be for Medicaid expansion (which actually costs the state something) and not the subsidies (which will cost nothing).
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 190


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines