Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2014, 05:24:49 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 405
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gun control loons getting loonier on: September 22, 2014, 03:50:52 pm
Sport hunters are not the problem. Machine guns are intended to cause multiple casualties. 
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Joe Biden under fire from Jewish groups for using word 'Shylocks' during speech on: September 22, 2014, 03:27:10 pm
I have seen it used to describe loan sharks.  Not the (famously Jewish) Rothschild family, though, which seems to refuse to lend to people who would be hurt by the deal. The Rothschilds did not finance gambling on credit or consumer loans.



3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gun control loons getting loonier on: September 22, 2014, 03:16:10 pm
If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.  There is no legitimate purpose for consumers owning these guns.

First off, this rifle is akin to an M21 not a M16. As dead0man already pointed out, sniper rifles are a completely different beast than automatic rifles.  And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.  So can the anti-terrorist argument since actual terrorist groups such as ISIL and DPM already have access to military sniper rifles that serve the same purpose and are cheaper.

You can play that game with any particular gun.  Sure, one boutique model of gun is probably not significant.  It's an issue of where you draw the line between legal and illegal.

True, but there is no bright line separating this gun from a "legitimate" hunting rifle, so trying to ban it will arouse a whole lot of heat from the pro-gun nuts, and even if the anti-gun nuts were to win such a battle, it's doubtful the win would end up having saved any lives as even if a genuine nut were to make use of it, that nut would likely have killed and wounded more people with a different gun.

Technically a hunter targeting a deer is a sniper except that the object of his attack is not human. A sniper is a specially-trained soldier who typically has a high likelihood of killing people but little of surviving once detected.

Accuracy of a shot and the potential for killing several persons at once is the difference between a hunting rifle and a machine gun. Getting extreme precision in a shot is inconsistent with rapid fire.

One typically has only one shot at a deer... or a high-value military target (let us say a senior officer or a high-level political figure).
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Molotov cocktail thrown into Rep. Cleaver's (D-MO) office on: September 22, 2014, 03:07:55 pm
Who would do this? So dumb.

Ted Kaczynski is by all accounts a brilliant fellow. Ill-developed emotionally, though. See also Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 atrocities.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: A history lesson on the continuing development of the Republican party on: September 22, 2014, 04:38:50 am
Hoover arguably belongs on the Lincoln/Eisenhower side of the equation, despite the assumptions that scattershot readings of history make about him. He was an engineer and a product of the Industrial Revolution and the Machine Age. He saw society as one big factory and all of its citizens and institutions as its moving parts - solving public policy problems was no different than trying to make an assembly line run more smoothly. On one hand, it's optimistically liberal - it opens the door for central planning and reliance on experts over the collective decision making of market actors. On the other hand, it's unsympathetically conservative - it can give rise to a cold, managerial "run government like a business" mentality. But the fact that Hoover believed government could work well and be a positive force in society is what precludes him from being lumped in with the Tea Party.

Hoover was simply ill-suited to be President. He demonstrates that profit-and-loss experience is irrelevant to government, much of which (like justice and law enforcement) could never operate on a profit-and-loss basis.

The economic meltdowns beginning in 2007 and 1929 had much the same cause and did similar damage for about a year and a half. The difference? In 2009 Barack Obama backed the banks at the start of his term. In 1931, Herbert Hoover let the bank runs that would eventually shred the financial system 'sort things out'. That sorting-out undid about 25 years of economic progress. That is how business mangers see things in macroeconomics.

The Tea Party pols are cruel. Put them fully in charge, and they would give us a full-blown Depression.     

 
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Paul, Christie, Cruz trails hard, Bush & Huck slightly ahead on: September 21, 2014, 12:32:23 pm
How do we know that they used the likely voter model to estimate the 2016 turn out in this poll? That's pure speculation in my view and probably false. Why couldn't they have asked all respondents this question? After all, they don't estimate the likely voter turnout until after the poll has been executed. When they ask a question related to 2016, there's no reason they'll spend heaps of resources to use a 2014 electorate to calculate such an outcome instead of just using the raw numbers.

"PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."

And since the focal point of the poll is the senate race, the likely voters are of the senate race.

Exactly. The likely voters are of the senate race. It doesn't say whether they used likely voters or registered voters for their 2016 calculation. I would be very surprised if they calculated a likely voter outcome this far in advance.

Every single question in the poll is answered by the 2014 likely voters.

PPP really should know better than to test 2016 matchups among 2014 likely voters.

How do you know that if it's not stated anywhere?
I don't consider this sentence to answer the question: "PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."
It just tells about the poll in general (the main theme is after all the 2014 election), but don't say anything about specific questions within the larger poll. Do you think they only ask the baseball/American football questions to likely voters? I think not. I'm pretty sure it's only 2014 related questions which are screened using likely voters. This does of course also include policy questions that might influence their 2014 decisions, for instance their stance on minimum wage. Yet the 2016 universe is a whole 'nother ball game, so it doesn't apply really.

The sports questions are there in part to discover demographic trends. Sports teams do not indicate whether someone is Right or Left, but that large numbers of people in Florida or North Carolina are fans of the Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Cleveland Indians, Cincinnati Reds, or Detroit Tigers indicates that many of the adults are from elsewhere and have  had their political views formed elsewhere. Sports loyalties are among the most rigid, arguably as rigid as politics and religion that people do not change easily. (One would expect most North Carolinians to be fans of the Atlanta Braves, the closest major league baseball team).

So if one is a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers and lives in San Antonio, one is likely to have cultural traits characteristic of southern California. Adults who were born in or near San Antonio are likely to become fans of the Texas Rangers or Houston Astros even if their parents are fans of the Chicago White Sox or Minnesota Twins.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeff Sessions on: September 20, 2014, 11:40:30 pm
Obviously Sessions is going to lose to Victor Sanchez Williams in a massive landslide this November, but if he somehow returns to congress next year and decides to run for president, how would he fare against:

-Hillary Clinton
-Martin O'Malley
-Bernie Sanders
-Joe Biden
-Generic Democrat

Discuss with Maps!

btw it will look like this when against Generic D:
 

The map is basically an inverse of 1936. You could do better.

I could show a map with the Republican winning only Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and the Third Congressional District of Nebraska. 

Maybe for Ted Cruz I could show an electoral map in which he wins his own state and roughly 47 other electoral votes -- which is one way to describe how Goldwater fared in 1964. Texas has 38 electoral votes instead of the five that Goldwater's Arizona had to offer in 1964...

Jeff Sessions is a Southern reactionary who will have little appeal in most of America outside of Dixie. Just look at the polls for Huckabee outside the South, which are awful. 

He would lose Florida and Virginia, by the way.
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Who "won" each cycle? on: September 20, 2014, 05:12:01 pm
1980: GOP overwhelmingly
1982: Dem barely
1984: GOP
1986: Dem
1988: GOP
1990: Dem barely
1992: Dem
1994: GOP overwhelmingly
1996: Dem
1998: Dem barely
2000: GOP barely
2002: GOP
2004: GOP
2006: Dem overwhelmingly
2008: Dem overwhelmingly
2010: GOP overwhelmingly
2012: Dem

It seems that neither party has had a monopoly on power as soon as each party gave up its "traditional" "moderate" bases of support.

Do you think that the era uninterrupted one-party (albeit superfluous at times) rule is over?


No -- not if one Party can entrench itself indefinitely through gerrymandering or (if possible) alteration of voting rights to the permanent advantage of the Party that enacts the alteration (yet to happen -- but if employers can control their employees' votes, such ensures one-Party rule indefinitely).
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: KY: Gravis: Clinton close to Paul on: September 18, 2014, 01:47:58 pm
Considering that Rand Paul is a Senator from Kentucky, this is a very weak early showing. He either has a very weak Favorite Son effect, or he would lose badly to Hillary Clinton nationwide -- or both.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 18, 2014, 11:09:42 am
For what it is worth, Gravis shows Hillary Clinton only 2% behind Rand Paul.  Nothing else that fits this map, but that is a very weak performance for someone who should be a Favorite Son in a state that has gone R by large margins in the last few Presidential elections. 

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


   

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul




blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

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






11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 17, 2014, 01:37:49 pm
Here's my projection of the 2016 election based upon what I see in Hillary Clinton against the main four potential nominees in current polls. I pay no attention to Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, or Scott Walker, as they lose by ludicrous margins in all but sure-R states.  

I don't really like to change this map often, especially over a state with 'only' six electoral votes. But the state in question is Kansas, and at this point the state is beginning to show trouble for all potential GOP nominees except Jeb Bush. That is without taking Ted Cruz seriously. Three of four potential nominees would make Kansas very close in 2016.

States have rarely flipped as sharply as Kansas seems to be doing now.     



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4%

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls

Gray -- no polling

Now, based on how states did in 2008 and 2012 and how analogous states do, I fill in the rest:



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie  66
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012, or a split 81
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4% 14

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 50
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 76

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 199
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 32

Gray --  I have no idea (no suitable analogues) 12


I see America much less polarized now than it was in 2008 or 2012.  
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 17, 2014, 01:03:19 pm
PPP poll of Kansas:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/09/orman-davis-lead-kansas-races.html#more

Bush 46%
Clinton 40%

Christie 42%
Clinton 40%

Clinton 44%
Cruz 41%

Huckabee 45%
Clinton 42%

Paul 43%
Clinton 41%

I find it hard to believe that Kansas could be close in the 2016 Presidential election -- but ignoring Ted Cruz (who puts the GOP at risk of losing as badly as Barry Goldwater did in 1964), Kansas would be in play with any Republican other than Jeb Bush.

We're talking about Kansas. Something is going on there. All that I can figure is that the Hard Right fully took over the GOP and purged away the moderates -- but forgot to govern competently. What were moderates in the GOP can basically join the Kansas Democratic Party and take it over much as dissident Democrats took over the Republican Party in some Southern states. It's only six electoral votes, so it isn't as significant as Virginia. The Republican Party still can't afford to lose Kansas.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


   

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul




blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

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





13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: September 16, 2014, 11:26:05 pm
Quote
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) People seeking clues about how soon the Supreme Court might weigh in on states' gay marriage bans should pay close attention to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Minnesota audience Tuesday.

Ginsburg said cases pending before the circuit covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee would probably play a role in the high court's timing. She said "there will be some urgency" if that appeals court allows same-sex marriage bans to stand. Such a decision would run contrary to a legal trend favoring gay marriage and force the Supreme Court to step in sooner, she predicted.

She said if the appeals panel falls in line with other rulings there is "no need for us to rush."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage_n_5833090.html
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AR: Gravis: Clinton trailing on: September 16, 2014, 04:59:47 pm
PPP seeks to poll Arkansas this weekend.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Carson: ISIL is like Political Correctness on: September 16, 2014, 04:58:49 pm
The fallacy reductio ad Hitlerum has now become reductio ad statuum islamicum levantis.

Ugh!
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Paul, Christie, Cruz trails hard, Bush & Huck slightly ahead on: September 16, 2014, 02:35:33 pm
Here's how the polls have Clinton vs. Bush:




blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

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

In the absence of polls of Clinton vs. Bush, here is my best guess (no, I have no idea how  Indiana, Missouri, or the Second Congressional District of Nebraska would go):



blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

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

I'm not contradicting any recent poll. The tie in Georgia says what I consider reasonable about Missouri. Indiana? Because the most recent poll on SSM gives an edge in favor of SSM, I must consider it up in the air until I see otherwise.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Michigan-PPP: Hillary leads all by double digits on: September 16, 2014, 02:19:45 pm
Michigan in recent binary Presidential elections:

Year      Pct D   Pct R  Margin   National Result

2012      54       45        9        D+4
2008      57       41      16        D+7  
2004      51       48        3        R+3
2000      51       46        5       even* 
1988      46       54        8         R+7

A Democratic nominee  needs to win Michigan by at least 5% to win nationwide. Unlike the case in 2000, "even" in nationwide voting favors a Democrat.   Michigan is roughly D+5.

*We all know how the 2000 election turned out. Because of Ross Perot, neither the 1992 nor 1996 election was really binary.     


More specific:

1988: Michigan vs. National R+0.17


Since after the 1980s, Michigan has been a Democratic base state. The numbers:

1992 Michigan vs. National: D+1.83
1996 Michigan vs. National: D+4.69
2000 Michigan vs. National: D+4.62
2004 Michigan vs. National: D+5.88
2008 Michigan vs. National: D+9.18
2012 Michigan vs. National: D+5.61

Average margin spread, from 1992 to 2012, was: D+5.30

The state of Michigan is now a partisan-voting index of 5 to 6 percentage points more Democratic relative the percent margins from the U.S. Popular Vote.


Which means that when someone calls Michigan a "Purple State," you can safely assume that they're completely divorced from reality and press the Ignore button.

Or start laughing as if one were talking about Kansas being a purple state. Oh, wait!
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 16, 2014, 02:11:47 pm
The most recent poll by PPP of North Carolina compels me to rate North Carolina as a pure toss-up with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Christie and Paul lose, but Bush and Huckabee get bare edges. Mixed results imply a tie.

Here's my projection of the 2016 election based upon what I see in Hillary Clinton against the main four potential nominees in current polls. I pay no attention to Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, or Scott Walker, as they lose by ludicrous margins in all but sure-R states.  

Adjusting for Alaska. I ignore Sarah Palin. I also ignore the Gravis poll for Wisconsin because the one binary choice involves Paul Ryan, who has never done well anywhere and is a classic non-choice for the Presidency.



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4%

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls

Gray -- no polling

Now, based on how states did in 2008 and 2012 and how analogous states do, I fill in the rest:



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie  66
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012, or a split 81
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4% 14

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 50
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 76

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 199
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 32

Gray --  I have no idea (no suitable analogues) 12


I see America much less polarized now than it was in 2008 or 2012.  
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 16, 2014, 02:02:07 pm
NC, PPP

-The 2016 Presidential race in North Carolina continues to look like it will be close if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, but the numbers are a little bit better for Republicans this month. Clinton trails both Jeb Bush (45/43) and Mike Huckabee (46/45) by modest margins. She leads Rand Paul (46/41), Chris Christie (45/38), and Ted Cruz (48/40) in hypothetical head to heads.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/09/hagan-lead-steady-at-4-points.html

Hillary seems to have slipped a bit.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


   

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul




blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

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





20  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: MI: Mitchell: Snyder leading by 5 on: September 16, 2014, 08:40:14 am
Just another poll from one of the bad one-state Michigan pollsters... 
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 15, 2014, 01:45:06 pm
Gravis Marketing, Arkansas

Paul (R)- 48%
Clinton (D)- 42%

Bush (R)- 49%
Clinton (D)- 42%

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/telephone-survey-arkansas-political-poll/


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


   

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul




blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

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




22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Judiciary transformation under President Obama on: September 15, 2014, 01:35:46 pm
Good news, but it would be nice if we could also move SCOTUS to the left (or even the center). 


Such would require the death of retirement of one of the 'conservative' Justices.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 15, 2014, 08:32:36 am
Why do you think the Northern states and California are trending Republican in the polls, in theory, compared to the southern states?

I don't really take stock in polls that are taken 2 years away from the election but I find it interesting, states like California getting a +14% jump for Republicans. I don't expect it to stay like that but I'm wondering why that is.

Is it just a matter of the Democrats maxed out their vote with Obama in 2008 and 2012 since their base was extremely enthusiastic in both elections, and it's possible they are not as enthused heading into 2016? Or just a way the pollsters are polling?

Reversion to the mean?

Barack Obama is about as polarizing a politician as there has been.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why the Clinton hype? on: September 14, 2014, 06:27:16 pm
I understand speculating on a Clinton candidacy, that's fine. But why is she being treated like this messianic, invincible goddess? Is it because she is a woman? Clinton-era nostalgia? The fact that the Democrats know she is their only shot at keeping the White House?

...to complete the job that the GOP prevented President Obama from doing.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kaine vs. Kasich on: September 13, 2014, 10:40:38 pm
Both are boring old white men, exactly what we need again Roll Eyes, but I think Kasich would win pretty narrowly, or it would be a tied map.



Colorado, Wisconsin, and Florida would probably be the three closest states, respectively.

That makes more sense -- with Scott Walker rigging the election in Wisconsin.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 405


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines