Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2015, 06:37:51 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 7 8 9 10 ... 462
101  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Democrat Bench for President... on: May 16, 2015, 02:45:13 pm
Republicans have the House, the Senate, and most Governorships. They have more people in the positions closest to the Presidency (US Senate, Governorships) and in the positions second-closest to the Presidency (US House, largely).

But that said, would you rather have Miguel Cabrera or four sluggers in AA ball?
102  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: When will the USA have the first millenial (Y) president? on: May 16, 2015, 02:02:23 pm
Generations (Howe and Strauss) and the age of the generations when their first member became President:

Awakening (1701-1724) NEVER
Liberty (1725-1742) 65 -- Washington, 1789
Republican (1743-1766) 58 -- Jefferson, 1801
Compromise (1767-1791) 58 -- J Q Adams, 1825
Transcendental (1792-1821) 62 -- Fillmore, 1850
Gilded (1822-1842) 47 -- Grant, 1867
Progressive (1843-1859) 54 -- McKinley, 1897 
Missionary (1860-1882) 61 -- Harding, 1921
Lost (1883-1900) 62 -- Truman, 1945
GI (1901-1924) 60 -- Kennedy, 1961
Silent (1925-1942) -- probably never, 90 or 91 if something were to happen to Barack Obama
Boom (1943-1960) 50 -- Clinton, 1993 
X (1961-1981) 48 -- Obama, 2009

No member of the Millennial Generation will be eligible to be President or Vice-President until 2017... and that would be someone born in early-to-middle January 1982. 

Minimum 47 in history, maximum 65 for the generation (ignoring the Awakening Generation of Benjamin Franklin and almost certainly the Silent Generation)

1982 + 47 = 2029
1982 + 65 = 2047

...wins the Presidency in 2028, minimum; 2044 maximum. 
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: American Crossroads: Hillary trailing in all swing states! on: May 15, 2015, 03:02:49 am
"Generic Democrat" and "Generic Republican" always poll strong before campaign season begins and then curiously go into hibernation in the year of the election just about when the bears start waking up from their winter slumber.


As I have noted before these polls are used by Rove as part of his fundraising presentations.  He is selling how vulnerable Hillary is...if only you donate enough to stop her.

Karl Rogue -- enough said.
104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ceiling for Republicans and Democrats on: May 14, 2015, 01:58:20 pm

Republican blowout:



Democratic blowout:



Michigan has too many blacks to go Republican in a Presidential election, and Minnesota does not swing much.  A Kentucky poll showed Rand Paul tied with Hillary Clinton.  Clinton-but-not-Obama states could stay that way -- but Hillary wins them.

105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: College student confronts Jeb Bush: "Your Brother Created ISIS" on: May 14, 2015, 01:51:55 pm
If Jeb is elected President, then she might want to turn the Junior Year in France program into completion of her degree -- in France.

Profile in courage.
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: The Asian Vote by Ethnic Group on: May 14, 2015, 11:49:20 am
My understanding is that Asians in the Mississippi delta area vote like whites.

I'm guessing a lot of them are not also Asian but also White as well. You'd be surprised to see a lot of mixed Asian/White people in the region.

Chinese immigrants to Mississippi were almost all male. If they married they married out. Their descendants are thus either black or at least half-white. 
107  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Anyone here old enough to remember the 1984 presidential election? on: May 14, 2015, 10:53:49 am
I was 13 that year. In my home state, Michigan, it was the last year on record Detroit Tigers won the World Series following a 35-and-5 record of their first 40 games of that MLB season. That seemed to overshadow the 1984 United States presidential election in my area of the country. My memory of the 1984 presidential election was no one was betting on Walter Mondale to unseat Ronald Reagan because not many seemed overly interested in who the Democrats would nominate in the first place.

That was more to be remembered -- maybe the best team to have ever won a World Series that did not have a future Baseball Hall of Fame (Alan Trammell belongs in the Hall of Fame even if he was the fourth-best shortstop of his time; the others were Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith, and Robin Yount. The 1980s had some great middle-infielders. Lou Whitaker was unpopular among baseball writers because he 'failed' to salute the American flag. He was a Jehovah's Witness, and Jehovah's Witnesses consider any salute to a flag an act of idolatry. I may think a salute to the US flag harmless, but following one's religious convictions is honorable in contrast to betting on baseball games, throwing games, or using performance-enhancing drugs to extend a career.

But I digress.     
108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Here we can contrast elections on: May 14, 2015, 09:52:16 am
1996 to 2000. Here is how George W. Bush won.



Clinton 1996 Gore 2000 red
Clinton 1996 Bush 2000 yellow
Dole 1996 Bush 2000 blue

Dubya broadened the map. He turned over eleven Clinton wins from 1996, and he needed every one of the states.

Kentucky
Louisiana
West Virginia
Arizona
Arkansas
Tennessee
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio
New Hampshire
Florida

109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Anyone here old enough to remember the 1984 presidential election? on: May 14, 2015, 09:31:00 am
The trick is not in having seen it -- it is in remembering it. The biggest question was whether Walter Mondale could even win Minnesota.
110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Last time a VP delivered a state on: May 14, 2015, 09:27:24 am
You could look at this topic the other way round, too:
Obama may have owed Indiana and North Carolina (and perhaps even some more states) to Palin.

You might also add Florida.
111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WHAS11/Courier-Journal: Clinton ties with Paul in Kentucky on: May 14, 2015, 09:22:10 am
If these numbers are true, I don't see why Clinton wouldn't spend some money in Kentucky as well as pencil in a few campaign stops after the primary.

Maybe she should spend money in every state. Isn't that what the 50-state strategy is all about?

The Republicans have had a 50-state strategy forever. The Democrats need to bring back theirs that they had in the late 2000s.

In an open-seat election one widens the map if one can, as Clinton did in 1992, Dubya did in 2000, and Obama did in 2008. Neither Bill Clinton nor Dubya could have won without doing so. Obama was never certain of victory in 2008 until mid-September, and he may have seen the economic meltdown as the cause of his win... so why was he campaigning in Indiana in 2008 unless he was uncertain of winning? An incumbent may have good cause to not campaign in states that he barely won or lost in the previous campaign -- Senate seats in Indiana and Missouri were worth more to President Obama than were 21 electoral votes that he could afford to lose by not campaigning.

112  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WHAS11/Courier-Journal: Clinton ties with Paul in Kentucky on: May 14, 2015, 09:12:17 am
The Clinton-but-not-Obama states may remain that.

I would of course rather see other matchups; I cannot ensure that Rand Paul is the best possible nominee for the GOP in Kentucky. One can no longer assume that a politician being from a certain state gives him a huge advantage in a Presidential election.

Barack Obama lost the state 60-37 in 2012. Mondale lost the state 60-39 in 1984. McGovern lost the state 63-34. One does not lose a state by 20% or more unless one is a horrible match for the state. Comparing Obama to McGovern or Mondale, the two Democrats who lost in 49-state blowouts might seem ludicrous when one considers that Obama won about as middling a victory as any President ever got in 2012, but such says much about Barack Obama, at least in the part of the country that decisively rejected him. He was the Democratic equivalent of Ronald Reagan in the part that he won, but the equivalent of George McGovern or Walter Mondale where he lost.

In subsequent elections to 1972 and 1984 -- Jimmy Carter won Kentucky by 7%. Dukakis still lost Kentucky by 2% more than the national average, but Bill Clinton won the state in 1992 and 1996. Carter and Clinton were about as good cultural matches for Kentucky as McGovern, Mondale, and Obama were horrible matches for Kentucky.

Some national polls have shown Hillary Clinton projecting to win by 10% or so -- but most of the statewide polls have been in states that Barack Obama won by huge margins in 2008. Obama maxed those states out; Hillary Clinton is not gaining in those states. She must be gaining elsewhere -- maybe a little in close states of 2008 and 2012. She's not going to gtet all of her gain in Ohio or Virgina. The PPP poll in Arizona shows a huge Democratic gain there that coincides with weak approvals for just about every elected Republican. The Bluegrass poll shows only one matchup. That may not be enough to project Kentucky as a state to be decided by a razor-thin margin.

Hillary Clinton already has the electoral machine of Barack Obama on her side. But she does not have the cultural baggage of Obama. She is not the new George Mondale or Walter McGovern in the Mountain and Deep South as was Barack Obama.  


113  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: There Is No 'Blue Wall' on: May 14, 2015, 08:36:26 am
The Democrats now have the more stable coalition for winning the Presidency. Their last (the current) President is far easier to defend than the last Republican President. Their policies are beginning to pay political dividends. 
114  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: MO: House Speak John Diehl in inappropriate relationship w/ 19 year old intern on: May 13, 2015, 11:52:50 pm
Missouri politics are getting creepy.
115  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: May 13, 2015, 11:51:27 pm
Because of regional differences, both California and Texas are tough to poll.

Really, I don't trust the Texas poll. One needs a sample size in the multiple thousands to get a good sample for Texas. The President may have had a string of incidents of good fortune... but that can end.



60% or higher maroon (70% saturation)

55-59% medium red (50% saturation)

50-54% pink (30% saturation)
45-49% orange -- Obama ahead (30% saturation)
45-49% yellow -- exact tie (40% saturation)
45-49% aqua -- Obama behind (20% saturation)
44% blue (20% saturation)
40-43% blue (50% saturation)
30-40% deep blue (70% saturation)
under 30%(90% saturation)
116  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: May 13, 2015, 08:10:28 pm
WHAS-TV, ABC-11, Louisville -- Paul vs. Clinton

Asked of 2104 registered voters

45% Rand Paul (R)

45% Hillary Clinton (D)

11% Undecided

(error due to rounding)

...Rand Paul leads all other Republicans for the Primary race.


Is the thrill gone?

 
Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush





Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul





Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



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
117  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Wyoming passses law that criminalizes collection of enviromental data on: May 13, 2015, 05:41:52 pm
What part of the First Amendment does the Wyoming state legislature fail to understand?
118  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: May 13, 2015, 05:09:37 pm
We may have some glaring outliers here in the four largest states in electoral votes .

Approve - disapprove -- not sure (Barack Obama approval)

CA 52-42-6
TX  50-45-5 (huh?Huh?)
Florida 49-48-3
New York 61-36-3

https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/sites/mediarelations.gwu.edu/files/GWBattlegroundPoll57-crosstabs.pdf

Any new pollster is suspect even with a 427-page PDF laden with data.



60% or higher maroon (70% saturation)
55-59% medium red (50% saturation)

50-54% pink (30% saturation)
45-49% orange -- Obama ahead (30% saturation)
45-49% yellow -- exact tie (40% saturation)
45-49% aqua -- Obama behind (20% saturation)
44% blue (20% saturation)
40-43% blue (50% saturation)
30-40% deep blue (70% saturation)
under 30%(90% saturation)













119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary un der water by GWU on: May 13, 2015, 04:54:44 pm
New pollsters are always suspect.

Texas is infamously tricky to poll due to regional differences within the state. How can anyone get a good sample in Texas -- and by that I do not mean a sample that gets the result that one wants?

Obama having 50% approval in Texas (page Cool? That looks like an outlier.
120  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: There Is No 'Blue Wall' on: May 13, 2015, 04:33:24 pm
When all is said and done, the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.


 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

Is anyone impressed by the states that ever voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 or 1956? Most were (and still are) toward the bottom in measures of human development, including formal education. To be sure, Missouri and West Virginia still had the strong and militant  United Mine Workers who could make the difference between Democrats and Republicans winning the state -- but now Missouri and West Virginia are statistically awful.

...Barack Obama has picked up lots of voters who would be conservatives in other times. Asian-Americans (except Japanese-Americans and Indian-Americans)  used to be more conservative than Americans as a whole. But have their cultures really changed? It's America that has changed. Republicans used to exploit anti-Communist sentiments among most Asian-American groups successfully, but their anti-intellectualism now alienates some Asian-American groups (Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese). Asian-American voters  are as culturally-conservative as they ever were, but Republicans offer the wrong sort of conservatism. This is a growing part of the electorate, and when California was competitive they may have been the difference between R and D victories.

The Japanese-American component of the Asian-American vote has not increased -- but the Chinese-American, Korean-American, Vietnamese-American, and Filipino-American parts of the electorate have grown.  So has the Indian-American vote. Anti-intellectualism offends them.

American blacks may not have grown as a group, and paradoxically the states with the highest percentages of blacks are the strongest places for Republicans. But add Latinos, many of whom have joined the middle class and in earlier times might have been expected to start voting Republican are staying away from the GOP. The Latino vote is the difference between California being a swing state and being Solid D.

But those are ethnic groups.    

Barack Obama did not win these interests which may have been the difference between a near-landslide (2008) or a middling win (2012) and blowout wins in 2008 and 2012:

Mormons
plutocrats
ranch interests
oil interests

which likely made the difference between Obama and Eisenhower in their coalitions of victory. Obama did extremely well with just about any discernible minority group; Eisenhower probably fared better among Latinos and blacks than any subsequent Republican. On the other side, Eisenhower probably never won a majority of organized labor and Obama probably saw organized labor at its political weakest since the 1920s during his Presidency.

I look at Eisenhower winning Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island together -- twice. Such is remarkable. No Republican since has ever won both Massachusetts and Minnesota together; Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the only non-Southern states that Herbert Hoover failed to win in his 1928 landslide.  

...It is hard to understand what Barack Obama did to offend Mormons, who have heavily voted Republican in every Presidential election since 1948. A Republican would have to do something very stupid to lose the Mormon vote. Oil interests? That's the difference between Alaska being R and being D. Oil production workers have to be taken care of because they are out in the sticks.  

Ranch interests? Dairy farming now implies a factory-like setting for those who milk cows for an employer. Dairy farmers can let their proletarized help fend for themselves. Ranchers must provide housing for ranch hands who get a more paternalistic treatment and are less likely to find many fellow ranch hands. Cow-milkers can be unionized; ranch hands are isolated enough (it may be tens of miles to the next ranch) that they can't unionize.

.... President Obama may have started to pull some people who might have been conservatives toward the Democratic Party.  
  
121  Questions and Answers / Presidential Election Process / Re: Should general elections be held earlier for weather-related reasons? on: May 12, 2015, 06:48:46 pm
Early November is about right -- too early for bad winter weather and too late for summer lethargy.
122  Questions and Answers / Presidential Election Process / Re: Does the Electoral College protect states with low turnout? on: May 12, 2015, 06:47:11 pm
The more significant effect is that it ensures that if a state's government creates 50 million popular votes for the pol of the choosing of the corrupt machine, the such does not matter.

The Founding Fathers may have seen vote fraud as a possibility.
123  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How could a Democrat win the Dakotas? on: May 12, 2015, 06:20:56 pm
The Republican nominee scares Americans with talk of "Bomb Teheran now!" or disgusts America with talk as absurd as the 'legitimate rape' talk of would-be Senators Akin and Mourdock.

See Goldwater 1964; that's the last time either Dakota went for any Democrat.
124  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: There Is No 'Blue Wall' on: May 12, 2015, 06:17:15 pm
I think it just splendid that everyone here understands it is about  95% all about the popular vote, and nothing else, and this parsing of swing states is just a waste of time, particularly at this point in the election cycle. And sure one can speculate about the popular vote, but given Hillary's potential problems, and given that we don't know who the Pub nominee will be, and that it is really up in the air in fact, and that we don't know how the Pub contenders will do under the klieg lights under pressure in prime time, and given that we don't know what the economy will be like, or what the Middle East will look like, and whether or not there have been more terrorist attacks, and how the Iran thing will play out, isn't that just about as silly an exercise?

Thank so much. Cheers.

In 2000 where the votes came from mattered more than that Al Gore got more of them. In 2004, John Kerry could have won the Presidency with less than a majority of the popular vote by winning Ohio just barely.

In both 2008 and 2010 the Presidency seemed for a long time to boil down to Obama winning just one of several states that could have decided the election. 2008 proved to not be so close as it looked earlier.

As the 2016 season approaches, nobody reasonably expects either nominee to win the 55% or so of the popular vote that gives 400 or so electoral votes. But know well: as the popular vote is distributed, the Democrats have an edge because they can win the states that they have won in every election beginning in 1992 by smaller margins than the margins of states that they never win. The Democratic nominee can win the Presidency while getting less than a plurality of the popular vote.

Really? Yes. The tipping point for 2008 was Iowa, which Barack Obama won by a little over 9.5%. Oddly, Iowa was practically never in doubt for Obama. But shift 4.5% of the Presidential vote from D to R, and McCain would have won the popular vote 50.1% - 48.36%  but lost the popular vote 275-263.

Quote
PS: Oh yes, Lief, Silver did blame the polls for the UK debacle (interestingly, the Labour internal polls were much closer to the mark, with them down about 4%, and they were deeply worried about the election, and what the SNP was doing to them, so Milibrand was trotted out  to traduce the SNP, and announce that there were absolutely no marriage plans in the far horizon with them at all, but it was too little too late), but also blamed himself, for not having a higher error factor, to wit his confidence level about the potential of a majority government was much lower than it should have been. And that is about as relevant to this discussion as who Bushie is going to vote for for POTUS in 2016.

This election does not have the impending secession of California or the combination of New England and New York as an issue.  More likely we will see labor-management issues, the environment, or economic performance as the focus of 2016.
125  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Pennsylvania in 2016 on: May 12, 2015, 03:13:43 pm
New Mexico is probably gone for the Republicans in Presidential elections. Republicans do not need it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 462


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines