Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2016, 07:34:01 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 522
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Here we can contrast elections on: Today at 04:15:28 pm
100 years apart, overlay between William Howard Taft and Barack Obama, 1908/2008.

Taft (R) 51.6/321 - Bryan (D) 43.0/162 - Debs (S) 2.8/0
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain (R) 45.6/173

Similar percentages of the electoral vote for the winners.



Taft/ McCain blue
Taft/Obama yellow
Bryan/Obama red
Bryan/McCain green

Bryan won all of the former secessionist states, Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Nevada.  Bryan won seven states by 9% or less; Taft won six states by 9% or less.  Other states were blow-outs.

Clearly different in 1908 from a century later: Alaska, Arizona, Dee Cee,  Hawaii, and New Mexico weren't voting. There was no television or even radio in 1908. Above all, several Southern states did not have free and fair elections (blacks were effectively barred from voting).

Now what if the polarization is on the side of the winner?

FDR (D) 53.4/432 - Dewey (R) 45.9/99  
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain (R) 45.6/173

Arizona and New Mexico were voting this time; radio (but not TV) was very much a part of American life. America was well unified in a war going very well in 1944.  Alaska and Hawaii, let alone the District of Columbia, would not vote in 1944. Several states in the South still had no free elections.



FDR/Obama
FDR/McCain
Dewey/McCain
Dewey/Obama

FDR lost only four states by 14% or more, and only three by 5% to 9% (none between 9% to 14%).  His other losses were by 5% or less. He won the other 41 states at the time. Nine were by 5% or less, and another five by 5% to 9%. He won the 22 others by 9% or more.

It is enough to know that Barack Obama won enough states to win with the tipping-point state as Iowa, which he won by 9.54%. He had Reagan-like margins in his wins but Mondale-like losses in many states that he lost. Obama lost fourteen states by 14% or more.

America was terribly rifted in 2008. The 1944 election is a ratification of the successes of one of the most effective Presidents ever. People may disagree on who the greatest, second-greatest, and third-greatest Presidents were, but in some order those are Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. The 2008 election followed a President whose sole success was in getting re-elected.

   

2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Future tipping-point states? on: Today at 02:44:02 pm
Virginia 2016 barring a Democratic blowout, Minnesota (because it does not swing much) in a Democratic  blowout. In a 57-42 blowout, Minnesota might go 57-42 because that is about how I would expect Minnesota to go in a D blowout. In an R blowout -- it was the second-worst state for Nixon in 1972 and the worst state for Reagan in 1984.

I had a list of tipping-point states going back to the 1980s; as I recall Michigan was the tipping-point state in 1984.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NBC/SurveyMonkey national poll: Clinton beats Trump by 8 and Cruz by 10 on: Today at 01:39:18 pm
So it's a single digit race between the two likely nominees... don't screw up Hillary.

High single-digit difference. For the Presidential election, anything over 4% is a comfortable lead, at least for the time. 4% is the margin of error in most polls.

Most likely there is some statistical correlation in binary races between the margin of popular vote and the electoral vote. Of course one would expect a similarity between this election

Roosevelt 53.4 (432 EV) - Dewey 45.9  (99 EV)

and this one:

Obama 52.9 (365 EV) - McCain 45.6 (173 EV)

The first is seen as a big landslide and the second isn't. OK, FDR had the South locked up and the Republicans had the South mostly locked up.

Another good analogue for 2008 might be 1908:

Taft 51.6 (321) - Bryan 43.0 (162)

Obama and Taft both did well outside the South, but very badly in the South. Taft generally won close elections Up North, except in Nebraska (Bryan's home state) and some western states in which mining still figured an important part of the economy.

(That would be good for an overlay. You guessed it -- I am doing that one next!) 
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NBC/SurveyMonkey national poll: Clinton beats Trump by 8 and Cruz by 10 on: Today at 01:20:52 pm
That looks like an analogue for 2008 with huge polarization between the states ... and 1944 if the Obama-era polarization has abated.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USA Today/Suffolk National Poll: Clinton +11 on: Today at 10:10:34 am
Kasich and Sanders are irrelevances... frankly, so are national polls at this point.

I prefer state polls because... well, 2000. So far they show Hillary Clinton winning just about everything that Obama won in 2012 while expanding the map (especially if the nominee is Donald Trump).

A two-way race in which the Democrat wins by 10-12% of the popular vote? Not since 1940!
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How Donald Trump made me proud to be Hispanic on: Today at 01:03:49 am
Hispanics have a strong tendency to assimilate non-Hispanics into their culture.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Hillary reach 55% in the upcoming general election against Trump? on: Today at 01:02:18 am
That will take winning like Obama in the North and like Carter in 1976  in the South. Such is incompatible with the political culture of our time.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Describe your reaction if you wake up to this result on Nov 9th on: Today at 01:00:39 am
Wishing that I were German instead of being a German-American.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How Donald Trump made me proud to be Hispanic on: April 29, 2016, 10:33:44 pm
The rush of Americans to identify as anything except American is an embarrassing denouement to end what was once at least a plausibly great (aka passably acceptable) nation.

A great America is first a good America. Trump would debase America, so he could not make America great, whether for the first time or 'again'.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Describe your reaction if you wake up to this result on Nov 9th on: April 29, 2016, 06:30:06 pm
Amusement at how we've reached rock bottom, combined with relief that the radical left will be kept in check.

Simmering resentments among America's underclass will erupt.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 29, 2016, 06:13:51 pm

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump




This looks good, except for the fact that this is not an ordinary year, it's not close, and thus Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada (and arguably Virginia and Colorado) are lean D certainly and SC is at least Lean R if not pure tossup.

If you apply demographics based on national polls, SC is about even.

I'm deliberately charitable to Donald Trump so far on estimating what the battleground states are.

 
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IBD/TIPPP National poll: Clinton +7 against Trump AND Cruz on: April 29, 2016, 06:09:52 pm
Quote
However, Clinton’s ongoing email scandal makes her vulnerable. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of those following the scandal say Clinton likely compromised national security by using a private email server for government-related work while secretary of state. More than a third of Democrats (38%) believe this.

And 70% say she should drop out of the race if the FBI investigation finds she broke the law.  Almost half of Democrats (44%) would want her to do so.

So much for this being a "fringe" position.

...Which is nothing like the scandal of the Trump campaign roughing up hecklers and protesters.

Elect Donald Trump and you will see social unrest even worse than that of the 1960s.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Describe your reaction if you wake up to this result on Nov 9th on: April 29, 2016, 03:47:19 pm
Ask that all my contributions to political sites be deleted.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 28, 2016, 11:04:21 pm
I don't see Utah for Hillary. Wink

Two polls suggesting a virtual tie.

Donald Trump is doing much worse than other potential Republican nominees in Utah and much worse than Republicans in other statewide elections. That is a warning sign of a big difference.

So what does it matter if Donald Trump ends up winning Utah 53-47 instead of 70-30? Maybe not the piddling six electoral votes of Utah... but it also means that he is a horrible cultural match for LDS voters in other states -- like Arizona.  Gut the usual Mormon support for any Republican, and a state that has lots of Mormons might not lean so Republican. Donald Trump could bet a double-whammy in Arizona as the large Mexican-American population votes strongly against him.

The real problem for Donald Trump isn't Utah; it's Arizona. But if he loses Arizona he is also losing Nevada and Colorado as well -- and the Presidential election.

For another analogue, just consider another state that usually goes Republican: Indiana. If it goes 52-48 R, then what does that mean? Basically, the Republican has lost Ohio.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Poll: Is Donald Trump actually a Liberal Democrat? on: April 28, 2016, 10:54:10 pm
He does about the harm that one would expect  of a mole... but unlike the usual mole he seems to believe what he says.  
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: General Election: Is Hillary more likely to win Indiana or lose Minnesota? on: April 28, 2016, 10:52:06 pm
Win Indiana. Minnesota just does not swing much. It will be about 50-50 in a bad year for Democrats (second-best state for McGovern in 1972 and the best state for Mondale in 1984) and about 55-45 in a great year for Democrats. Obama won it decisively in 2008, but he won lots of states even more decisively.

Hillary Clinton could win nationally 58-41 (which is roughly the margin of Ronald Reagan in 1984) and she could win Minnesota by 57-43. 

Indiana really does swing intensely. In a really-good year for Democrats it is somewhat close to being a pick-up. Indiana is more conservative and R-leaning than Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio because it is more rural. Indiana has only one giant urban area (Greater Indianapolis) wholly within it; Illinois has Greater Chicago, Michigan has Greater Detroit, and Ohio has Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, and most of Cincinnati.  Indiana votes much like Illinois without Greater Chicago or Michigan without Greater Detroit.

2008, in which Barack Obama actually won Indiana, was a freak circumstance in which the Republicans had so mucked up the economy that it turned on the GOP with an economic meltdown, a credit crunch, and sky-high interest rates. By 2012 President Obama lost Indiana because with those largely solved Indiana could go back to being about R+10.

Indiana will be about the 40th-worst state for Hillary Clinton while Minnesota will be near the middle of the pack in a landslide by her. In a landslide against her, Minnesota will be one of her best seven states. But Indiana was one of the closest losses for Obama in 2012.

A Democrat who loses Indiana by about 15% is on the brink of winning nationally  (that is how Indiana went in 2000); a Democrat who loses Indiana by 10% is winning nationally. 
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: General Election: Is Hillary more likely to win Indiana or lose Minnesota? on: April 28, 2016, 08:43:22 pm
Win Indiana. Minnesota just does not swing much. It will be about 50-50 in a bad year for Democrats (second-best state for McGovern in 1972 and the best state for Mondale in 1984) and about 55-45 in a great year for Democrats. Obama won it decisively in 2008, but he won lots of states even more decisively.

Hillary Clinton could win nationally 58-41 (which is roughly the margin of Ronald Reagan in 1984) and she could win Minnesota by 57-43. 

Indiana really does swing intensely. In a really-good year for Democrats it is somewhat close to being a pick-up. Indiana is more conservative and R-leaning than Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio because it is more rural. Indiana has only one giant urban area (Greater Indianapolis) wholly within it; Illinois has Greater Chicago, Michigan has Greater Detroit, and Ohio has Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, and most of Cincinnati.  Indiana votes much like Illinois without Greater Chicago or Michigan without Greater Detroit.

2008, in which Barack Obama actually won Indiana, was a freak circumstance in which the Republicans had so mucked up the economy that it turned on the GOP with an economic meltdown, a credit crunch, and sky-high interest rates. By 2012 President Obama lost Indiana because with those largely solved Indiana could go back to being about R+10.

Indiana will be about the 40th-worst state for Hillary Clinton while Minnesota will be near the middle of the pack in a landslide by her. In a landslide against her, Minnesota will be one of her best seven states. But Indiana was one of the closest losses for Obama in 2012.

A Democrat who loses Indiana by about 15% is on the brink of winning nationally  (that is how Indiana went in 2000); a Democrat who loses Indiana by 10% is winning nationally.     
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Score one for Ted Cruz... against Communism! on: April 28, 2016, 08:17:10 pm
It may be coincidence, but the symbol used was that of the Zodiac killer.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which state would Trump have an easier time flipping in the GE? on: April 28, 2016, 08:14:47 pm
Wisconsin. Michigan and Wisconsin are much alike politically except that Michigan  has more blacks. 
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Rasmussen Reports national poll: Trump -38 Clinton -38 on: April 28, 2016, 08:12:52 pm
38-38? Worthless because it is indeterminate.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are we overdue for a presidential landslide (double-digit win) in 2016? on: April 28, 2016, 05:11:00 pm
Look at the 2008 Presidential election. 

32
31
28
25
22
22
20
19
16
15
15
15

Those are highest eleven margins of LOSS for the ultimate winner of that election.

Now try his highest margins of victory

92
45
37
28
27
26
25
25
25
24
22

Barack Obama was winning like Reagan in some states and losing like Mondale in others.

22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's Best State? on: April 28, 2016, 04:11:58 pm
PPP will be polling West Virginia this weekend.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NJ-Rutgers/Eagleton: Clinton ties Kasich, but beats Trump/Cruz by double digits on: April 28, 2016, 04:10:53 pm
Kasich is not generic R, lol. He polls far better than generic R because he's gained a reputation as a maverick and a moderate.

What?!  NJ Pubbies are boring old farts that live in Ocean County.  They don't like mavericks makin' a ruckus.  Even worse news for Hillary. 

NJ = slight Kasich.

Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich




30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.

With New Jersey, Clinton and Kasich tie. Less of the map is filled in, but enough to suggest that Kasich, based upon current polling, would win about 40 states.   
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AZ-Behavior Research Center: Clinton +7 on: April 28, 2016, 09:46:51 am
But D+7 is consistent with a lack of enthusiasm of Mormons for Trump and a surge in voting by Mexican-Americans.

Count on this: Arizona will be interesting this year. This is far from the last poll of Arizona. Some of us saw signs of Arizona becoming a swing state in recent elections, most notably the weak performance of John McCain for a favorite son in the 2008 Presidential election.

It will be difficult for the Republican nominee (I assume Donald Trump) to win the Presidency without winning Arizona. If the Republicans lose Arizona they have also lost Colorado as well.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 27, 2016, 11:17:33 pm
PPP will be polling West Virginia this weekend.

Would someone please poll Iowa, Minnesota, and Virginia? It's been a while.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 522


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines