Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2015, 01:21:24 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 452
101  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: State of Wisconsin bans its employees from even talking about climate change on: April 09, 2015, 02:35:41 pm
Scott Walker would do this as Dictator -- I mean President -- of the United States of America. Campaign theme against him if he is nominated.
102  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters on: April 09, 2015, 02:34:15 pm
I agree with everything in your post, King, except there's an element of moral hazard that comes in if children or other dependents are involved.

Yeah, if you are giving money to an addict or a compulsive gambler, you are contributing to a problem.  That doesn't mean "solutions" like this do any good or aren't worse than the problem.

Limits on welfare benefits themselves force some rational thrift even if people are stuck on welfare. Choices can include denying oneself expensive tiers of cable television, cooking from scratch instead of buying processed foods, being a late adapter of technology and fads, not buying on impulse, avoiding junk foods (especially alcohol!), and not smoking... Healthy habits may require some discipline and imagination, but they are inexpensive.

I almost think that the welfare system encourages people to gorge on questionable foods and get fat on them, to get crippled from obesity so that one can never get a job, and die young. Maybe the poor need to go to the swimming pool! Maybe poor people would be better off with tablets instead of televisions... of course with Wi-Fi in housing projects.  But even those tablets cost something. But just think of what is accessible on those tablets. The Great Books!

I may have little sympathy for malingerers who do nothing to improve their lives (indeed I know some such people!) -- but don't punish their children! What signal does that give, except that America is hostile to people on the outside looking in to sybaritic excess of a Master Class that shows no empathy to any but themselves? There will always be some radical or extremist cause looking for the opportunity to exploit legitimate resentments of the disadvantaged and the guilty feelings of somewhat-privileged people with conscience. 

 
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: CO/IA/VA-Quinnipiac: Hillary quite weak, as Paul runs best against her on: April 09, 2015, 10:05:50 am
Polling results with less than 45% for either candidate in a binary election have little value in predicting the end result.
104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: April 09, 2015, 10:04:13 am
Quinnipiac, CO/IA/VA

Colorado

Paul 44%
Clinton 41%

Clinton 41%
Christie 39%

Clinton 41%
Bush 38%

Walker 42%
Clinton 41%

Clinton 41%
Huckabee 41%



Iowa

Paul 43%
Clinton 42%

Clinton 41%
Christie 39%

Clinton 41%
Bush 40%

Clinton 44%
Walker 40%

Clinton 42%
Huckabee 42%


Virginia

Clinton 47%
Paul 43%

Clinton 46%
Christie 40%

Clinton 47%
Bush 40%

Clinton 47%
Walker 40%

Clinton 48%
Huckabee 40%

(Really, polls with nobody getting 45% are practically useless as predictors). 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2184



Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul



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






105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: my electoral map of April on: April 09, 2015, 09:54:03 am
It's always easy to make obvious predictions: in 2016, Idaho is going to go for the republican and Rhode Island is going to go for the Democrat unless there is a 49-state blowout or something of the sort. Political culture matters within a state.

Quality of the politicians? As campaigners or fund raisers? Sure. Overall quality on other matters? Not now. Political culture in the various states matters greatly. Republicans are tailor-made to fit certain cultures and offend others, and Democrats are the same. I wish that politicians were unable to win just by affiliating with stock-car racing and country music, but that is how George W. Bush won.

Of course -- what people turn out to vote matters greatly. Such is the difference between 2006, when moderates thought that the GOP was a disaster, and 2010 when things weren't improving fast enough.       
106  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters on: April 09, 2015, 08:00:35 am
Honest pay for honest work is far better than welfare. When the former is unavailable, then welfare can be the difference between having a chance to get back on one's feet or end up dead or peonized.

The draconian law shows what is worst in America -- callow treatment of those that the American economy leaves behind. Poor people are not at fault for a plight made theirs in legislatures and corporate boardrooms.

An economic Apartheid will do great harm to children.   
107  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: my electoral map of April on: April 08, 2015, 10:33:41 pm
The faults with the poll compounding above are:

1. There is no display of methodology
2. There is no time limit on any poll (mine date only to after the 2014 election)
3. There is no identification of sources
4. The compounding relies heavily upon the results of elections over the last twenty years

Mine may not tell you yet how anyone does in Texas, but nobody yet has a poll of Texas. Where I have no reliable data I show nothing.

Yes, I took this set of poll composites from my own thread, but you can see the thread and you can see my comments as well as those of others. There will be shaky polls out there... but polling activity has a way of discrediting those. There will be pollsters coming into the business (and I will check their polls against others). Thus if a poll comes out from the William Howard Taft Institute (I made that up) at Ohio State University and it concurs with PPP and Quinnipiac it is probably good. If it comes from the University of Michigan at Grand Rapids... maybe I will catch that one (there is no University of Michigan at Grand Rapids, so that would be a give-away). I reject internal polls on principle.

OK, so you are likely to assume that if "Massachusetts will never vote for the Republican nominee for President except in a blowout" or "Mississippi will never vote for the Democratic nominee for President except in a blowout", such may be good for predictions. Polling is the test. I was surprised to see West Virginia go for Dubya in 2000 in a close election -- likewise Virginia in 2008. Polling can show a change. 

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul



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
108  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters on: April 08, 2015, 10:03:39 pm
If any Christians most needed to re-read the Sermon on the Mount -- it is American Christians.

It would expose almost everything wrong with American economics.
109  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: April 08, 2015, 07:28:34 pm
PPP, North Carolina. Burr picked up a little.... approval awful but not much less than disapproval. He does lead every potential Democratic nominee by double digits.

Fluid situation, but probably as good as it could be for now with 36% approval. A Democratic wave gets him out of the Senate, but such is what it will take. He will surely have copious resources behind his re-election campaign. 


Q7
Do you approve or disapprove of Senator
Richard Burr’s job performance?
 36%  Approve
..........................................................
 37% Disapprove
......................................................
 27% Not sure
.........................................................

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_40815.pdf




110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Vote Trend for Presidency on: April 08, 2015, 07:17:29 pm
I read over this topic on some website a few months back and I've been looking into it ever since now and then.  

There seems to be a linear consistency with the amount of votes the Democratic candidate for president gets which remains fairly constant all the way back to 1972 with just two exceptions, 1976 and 2008.    





1976 would be the last time that Southern Conservative Democrats would support their party's candidate for the presidency, and that support was gone in 1980.    From 1980 onwards the vast majority of votes that the democratic candidate received would be from an ever growing base.


Alternative explanation: Gerald Ford was so bad a campaigner (remember: he had never participated in a statewide election) and the stench of the Watergate was so strong that Jimmy Carter, one of the weakest campaigners ever, could win in 1976 largely on cultural affinity. Carter won the sorts of voters in the South who might have voted for Goldwater in 1964 and Wallace in 1968 -- but Reagan won those in 1980.

What is telling is that if one adds the Anderson vote to the Carter vote in 1980, the election is close with an electorate that looks much like what Democrats would win with in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012. The Anderson vote, which looks  
.......



While the Democrats got their votes from a fairly consistent base, the Republicans would struggle (or succeed...) to unite whatever was left.     Whatever the Republicans couldn't unite to vote for their candidate would either go to a third party candidate or just wouldn't vote.     This is why there seems to be a direct three-way relation between the Republican candidate, the third party candidate, and turnout.

Not so clear. Third-party nominees took away from the vote of Truman in 1948 and Humphrey in 1968. Anderson seems to have won Republicans who couldn't quite bring themselves to vote for Reagan or Carter in 1980. Perot largely gutted the vote of Republicans in 1992 and 1996. I'm not ready to predict that some dissident faction of either Party finds an independent nominee fitting their desires in 2016 .Republicans can lose without such happening, as in 2008 and 2012.

If the Republicans find someone who can cut into the Blue (Atlas red) Firewall, perhaps in the wake of some economic or foreign calamity or capable of winning over Northern moderates... they may have the New Ronald Reagan. But is the new Ronald Reagan possible? Republicans may have believed that they saw such in Mitt Romney, who still lost decisively. Scott Walker? Sure, if American workers think that collective bargaining is worth sacrificing to get jobs that pay much less.  

.................



2008 seems to be the only election to deviate from this, probably owing to the poor performance by the Bush presidency and possibly the first non-white male president exciting the base.    

Another interesting tidbit seems to be that ever since 2004 the Republican base seems to almost be maxed out, that is they have not raised their vote total above 62 million since the 2004 election.    

I've looked around at the data a bit and would predict the Democratic Candidate to get around ~69-70 million votes, while the Republican candidate stays at around ~62-63 million votes, providing that turnout stays around 55%-60%.

These are just simple excel graphs I've made on my laptop with some spare time.   The numbers are mostly from fec.gov.
[/quote]

Barack Obama is the most polarizing President ever. He has been freakishly successful at winning certain votes, some of which used to be Republican; he is similarly ineffective at winning some votes that Democrats used to rely upon in their victories. If it isn't race it is that he is tailor-made for winning urban votes because he is an excellent speaker before gigantic audiences but utterly incompetent at winning rural votes. He won some states by margins that Ronald Reagan would have found enviable and lost some stats by margins that McGovern would have found unsettling.

He clearly won the Democratic base outside the South. He also picked up a large segment of the once reliably-Republican vote of older suburbs which have begun to have urban problems of declining income and decaying infrastructure while having lost what is left of any rural character. (The newer suburbs of Houston, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Atlanta, and Phoenix still have some rural character that those of most large Northern and West Coast cities have lost. The older the suburb, the more pro-Obama, which explains the difference between Orange County, California and San Mateo County, California in voting patterns).

...Without question, the Republican Party cannot win the Presidency with its current coalition unless the Democratic President is widely recognized as a failure. It still has Congressional districts so gerrymandered that the Democrats cannot win the House until they get at least 54% of the nationwide vote. But if the Democrats ever win 54% of the popular vote for Congress, then the Republican Party will have big trouble until it finds a new coalition.  
111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will the right react if this happens? on: April 08, 2015, 11:59:57 am
It may also be a way of preventing states from casting spurious votes. Suppose that North Dakota gave twenty million votes to its prairie dogs and those votes all went Republican, and no state did anything similarly screwy, in a Presidential election based on the popular vote alone.   
112  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Where will Walker stand on mass surveillance? on: April 08, 2015, 11:57:04 am
Walker would use surveillance on any group that he perceives to be opposed to him on political grounds. He is as authoritarian as any other Republican. 
113  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL/OH/PA-Quinnipiac: Hillary strong in OH, weaker in FL and PA on: April 08, 2015, 11:08:44 am
These polls are great with Med majuana, against the GOP field, with Hilary, I am looking forward to her winning the key state of FL.

Governor Rick Scott will not let Florida decide the 2016 election in favor of the Democratic nominee.  The role of Florida in the 2000 Presidential election can be repeated in 2016. You can trust that nobody is going to call Florida until some other necessary swing state that the Republican nominee must win (Colorado, Ohio, or Virginia) is called for the Democrat... or Florida runs out of votes.   
114  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters on: April 08, 2015, 01:09:33 am
I'm surprised that some Republican-dominated state legislatures have not decided to use relief of any kind as a bar to voting. Of course it would be discriminatory, and the US Supreme Court would likely knock it down. 
115  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will the right react if this happens? on: April 08, 2015, 12:13:11 am
Really, the States elect the President. We the People don't.
116  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters on: April 07, 2015, 11:19:15 pm
Little so compels thrift than does poverty.

The Koch syndicate reigns supreme in Kansas, a state that seems no longer to have much to  commend itself. After all, West Virginia is much more scenic and winters are much milder in Mississippi.
117  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will the right react if this happens? on: April 07, 2015, 12:32:06 pm
Could Michigan and/or Wisconsin retroactively change the EV allocation to proportional or by CD prior to the meeting of the electors in December?  Serious question, because I recall the Florida legislature threatening to assign their electors to Bush by legislative action if the recount didn't stop.

No. Retroactive changes in electoral law to favor one side after a prior election  makes a mockery of the vote. Such would have thrown the 2000 election to Al Gore had it been done in Florida or in several states that Dubya clearly won.
118  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters on: April 07, 2015, 12:28:26 pm
No alcohol, no sexually-related entertainment, no gambling... OK. I think that we are going to see the bartering of things eligible for welfare purchases.

I can see an overt two-tier culture, an economic Apartheid, forming. Poverty is rarely a choice.    

119  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters on: April 07, 2015, 11:08:15 am
So in other words Kansas is going to spend MORE money on welfare services, since enforcing something that requires this level of micromanagement isn't going to be cheap.

Are there no bank secrecy laws?

25 dollars from an ATM?

This is going to encourage an underground economy of evasion. This is a legislative disaster. 
120  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters on: April 07, 2015, 10:32:22 am
Movement Conservatism is cruel. Cruelty is the cause of almost all preventable evil.
121  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters on: April 07, 2015, 10:31:38 am
It would make more sense for welfare recipients in Kansas to boycott any products involving the Koch family that owns Kansas politics.

Banned from using swimming pools? Some of the other stuff makes some sense (like gambling venues, sexually-rated businesses, etc...)

The purpose is not so much to promote caution in personal spending (poverty itself enforces that!) but to make poor people willing to take any job available at whatever terms.
122  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PPP-National: Hillary leads GOP by 3-9 points on: April 07, 2015, 10:22:35 am
Slipping a little.  
123  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: What would the results have been in 2014 if it was a democratic wave? on: April 07, 2015, 10:16:01 am
Michigan and Ohio would enact SSM equality through legislation.
124  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: ABC/WaPo national poll: Hillary ahead by 14% and more on: April 06, 2015, 05:03:43 pm
These national polls are worthless. We need at least RV.

This is among RVs, according to RCP anyway.

It's of adults, but they've got RV numbers as well if you dig into King's link. Turns out, not much changes:

Clinton 53 / Bush 41
Clinton 54 / Walker 40
Clinton 54 / Rubio 39
Clinton 56 / Cruz 39


This is strange new territory. Unless new voters of 2016 are unusually Democratic in their leaning or current registered voters who do not vote in 2016 (which could be those who die before they can vote) are heavily Republican, it is hard to see how Hillary Clinton can gain on these figures. At this point the undecided who end up voting are Republican-leaning, so figure that 

Clinton 54 / Bush 46
Clinton 55 / Walker 45
Clinton 54 / Rubio 45
Clinton 57 / Cruz 43 

is how things would turn out.

Does she build on the huge Obama margins in some states of 2008? Not likely. Those are max-out areas. Her gains are likely to be outside the Democratic firewall.

Nobody can tell so far where those gains would be. Swing states like Florida, Ohio, and Virginia? Maybe, but that would not be enough to account for such margins. States that her husband was the last to carry? Could be. Upper Plains states (Kansas and northward?) I have yet to see any sign of that.
125  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What will be the "big" Social Issues in 2050? on: April 06, 2015, 09:59:46 am
Climate change... and robots.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 452


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines