Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 12, 2016, 03:33:18 pm
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 11 ... 507
126  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: CA-Field: Cruz +2 on: January 05, 2016, 07:35:42 am
Take a look at how low Fiorina is in California. Her record at HP isn't helping her where she is best known.
127  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: When did the parties switch platforms? on: January 05, 2016, 01:11:29 am
I can't show this map often enough for my liking. But here we go:

I here contrast Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama. Ike won Mormon country and the High Plains. But just think -- Ike won everything in the North and West, winning two states together (Massachusetts and Minnesota) that Republicans have never won together -- twice. In 2012, although winning a respectable 332 electoral votes, did not win a single state that Ike did not win twice.

(Sure, there will always be a significant overlay of any winner over the landslides of FDR in 1936, LBJ in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984 -- but the Obama wins make more impressive overlays against those of Eisenhower) because Ike and Obama both won the single states that Nixon and Reagan lost in 49-state landslides and the two tiny states that FDR lost in 1936.   




 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (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.  
128  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: When did the parties switch platforms? on: January 05, 2016, 12:53:31 am
The Democratic Party was the catch-all party before the mid-1960s split between agrarian reactionaries and racist populists (the latter rather liberal on government spending). The North and West had liberal and conservative wings in both parties.

Signs of the weakening of the Democratic Party began as Strom Thurmond split a third Party in a protest against the baby steps of Harry S. Truman on racial equity as early as 1948.

In the 1960s, Democrats sought to win the votes of Southern blacks But such built an unwieldy coalition of people with opposite purposes in politics. Unwieldy coalitions break. Southern whites slowly drifted R.

Almost the only liberals in the South are now blacks. Thus places like Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis, and New Orleans are very liberal -- as liberal as Northern cities -- but not large enough to offset the rest of the states.

Another aspect of the switch is that Northern suburbs, which used to be bastions of conservatism when they still had rural qualities when newly built, became liberal as they became more urban than rural. Suburbs of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago are now old enough that one must be old (60 or older) to remember them as attempts to bring some rural character to the fringes of great cities. The original infrastructure is getting old and has huge costs of repair or replacement.  The original lanes suited to thinly-packed tract houses now must often be widened (at much cost) to accommodate the densely-packed apartments that have even more cars per square mile. The older suburbs of places like St. Louis are getting legitimately urban, and the vote changes to match that reality. The newer suburbs of Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix (Phoenix isn't, strictly speaking, "Southern", but its suburbs are very conservative)   have no such problems -- and they remain bastions of political and economic conservatism. Southfield, Michigan is very different from Plano, Texas. But give time and places like Scottsdale, Arizona and Marietta, Georgia will become about as liberal as Southfield, Michigan -- at which time the game is up for the GOP coalition that it now has.

   
129  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump is elected: what would happen to this country 2 years from now... on: January 04, 2016, 10:46:19 pm
Brain drain!
130  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump is elected: what would happen to this country 2 years from now... on: January 04, 2016, 09:29:21 pm
I suspect he will follow the formula of the last two Presidents - Low approval ratings, but when faced with a potential opponent in 2020, wins narrowly but surprisingly.

Obama's win wasn't narrow tho.

It was narrow in the historical context of Presidential elections, and in the context of President's attempts at re-election. It's only not narrow when we think of what it looked like before it actually happened.

Until 2012 this was true:

Since 1908, Presidential winners had  won either at least 66.5% (Taft in 1908) or no more than 56.4% of the electoral vote (Kennedy in 1960). The electoral vote is either close -- or it isn't -- as a rule. For more than a century no Presidential winner had won a percentage of the electorate close to the mean result in the area of 60-62% despite profound changes in the electorate, statewide loyalties to Parties, economics, and technologies of communication and transportation. Apparently a campaigner slightly behind makes subtle changes in his campaign and makes things close; one way behind typically has few chances to win and knows it. In between? One gambles and typically makes things closer (Ford in 1976) or gambles and loses more severely (McCain 2008).

In 2012 Obama got very close to the mean of results in the Electoral College, which is an unlikely result. Go figure.   
131  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Connecticut State could be the swing state in Election 2016. on: January 04, 2016, 08:20:16 pm
Swing states, 2000-2012... meaning states and districts that have gone both ways:

CO
FL
IN
IA
NE-02
NV
NH
NM
NC
OH
VA
132  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's first TV ad is done on: January 04, 2016, 08:12:46 pm
Donald Trump officially made his ad buy today.  I've only looked at buys on two TV stations so far, one in the Quad Cities, the other in Cedar Rapids, but the ad buy is Huuuuuge.  He's spending $55,425 the next two weeks on Cedar Rapids' ABC affiliate KCRG alone, buying in practically every day part, including prime time.  He's even dropping $10,000 for two ads during Saturday afternoon's NFL Chiefs-Texans Wild Card game on that ABC station.

So no, Trump wasn't bluffing about the ad buy.

From what I can tell, he's reserved about $78,000 in ads in IA, $86,000 in ads in NH & about $8,000 in ads in Rochester, NY (?).

Rochester, MINNESOTA, best known for the Mayo Clinic.  Its viewing area includes much of north-central Iowa including Mason City.
133  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump is elected: what would happen to this country 2 years from now... on: January 04, 2016, 03:32:58 pm
Nostalgia for Dubya.
134  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Connecticut State could be the swing state in Election 2016. on: January 04, 2016, 11:47:47 am
As likely as Georgia the other way.

Basically the chance that your pet dog will sing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl.

135  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Hillary do better with blue collar white males than Obama? on: January 04, 2016, 02:12:27 am
No winning Presidential nominee has ever been so polarizing as Barack Obama in recent times. Everybody will have states that he wins by huge margins and states that he loses by large margins -- but Obama in 2008 was just simply extreme. Ignoring the District of Columbia, Obama won twenty states with 10% or larger margin. Yet he lost fifteen states by margins of 10% or more.  Cut the margin to 8% and the number of big wins and big losses goes to twenty-three overpowering wins and nineteen overpowering losses.

The tipping-point state that year was Iowa, and Obama won that state by more than 9%.

Another way to put it, only 116 electoral votes (that includes NE-02) were decided by less than 8%.

If you want to see what non-polarization looks like, contrast 1980. OK, that election had a significant third-party nominee...but Ronald Reagan won 25 states and lost two by margins greater than 8%. The tipping-point state that year was Illinois, which Reagan won by 7.93%. 264 electoral votes were decided by less than an 8% margin that year.

Ronald Reagan won 489 electoral votes following the first term of a President generally understood at the time as a failure; Barack Obama followed the most failed President since Buchanan. Both Reagan and Obama have generally been understood to be slick communicators. 

Obama actually got a larger portion of the popular vote in 2008 than Reagan got in 1980.

136  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Let's compare. TRUMP's rally = Max 15k+ ppl. Other's rally = around 100 ppl on: January 03, 2016, 07:58:00 pm
15K? Obama could get bigger crowds.
137  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio vs Clinton on: January 03, 2016, 07:57:09 pm




This is roughly a 50-50 split of the popular vote. Democrats have the edge because their wins are shallower than their losses. Colorado and Virginia decide the election.


...Iowa and Ohio are close; Colorado and Virginia decide the election. Ted Cruz is the wrong sort of Hispanic for Colorado and Nevada -- a right-wing Cuban-American.   
 
138  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Hillary do better with blue collar white males than Obama? on: January 03, 2016, 07:47:31 pm
Better, but most of the gain will be in states that Barack Obama lost badly in 2008 and 2012.  But not enough to swing any state except perhaps North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, or Georgia... and except for North Carolina those states are long shots unless the baseline for improvement is 2008.

139  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 'Donald Trump is disgusting' appears in the sky above Rose Bowl on: January 03, 2016, 02:05:36 am
This will persuade precisely zero voters.

It is in California, which isn;t going to vote for Trump in the general election anyway and usually figures in late in the primaries.
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: When should we expect the polling drought to end? on: January 02, 2016, 10:07:16 pm
Get throu8gh the Christmas break and the uncharacteristically-long New Year's weekend, and the polls will start coming through. I don't know of any pollsters active on the New Year's Day weekend.

But next week? We are going to see lots of polls -- maybe even more than some of us can handle.

Expect FL/OH/PA from Quinnipiac one week and CO/IA/VA  the other.... that's six of the most important states.  Marquette University Law School will have one of Wisconsin. Watch for a poll for New Hampshire from WMUR-TV (ABC-9, Concord). That's eight non-trivial states. Don't forget that PPP does its native North Carolina more often than any other state.

There might be some cr@ppy polls from right-wing special interests in Michigan that suggest that are best ignored (three clunker cars are not worth one that really works). Don't be surprised if an erratic poll appears from Texas (the state is tough to poll because of its regional divides and size).

We are going to see polls that we haven't seen since 2014 and even 2012.  There was an interesting pollster named the Big Ten Poll which will give not only Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but also Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and even Indiana.

We have seen little from the Mountain and Deep South. The Democratic nominee will not need them (Obama got clobbered in those states twice)... but any loss in any one of those states by the Republicans indicates a GOP disaster.  Louisiana elected a Democrat for Governor.

Don't discount the internet poll by YouGov; it proved the best in 2012 despite the lack of controls on internet polling.   
141  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver on 12/10: 20% chance of a brokered convention on: January 02, 2016, 10:41:17 am
Silver now realizes that if Trump is the nominee, his career as a a political prognosticator is over. He's bet the farm on this. I feel sorry for the man.

He's been very un-Silver this cycle.  Usually his predictions are based on hard data, but he seems to have suddenly developed delusions of being a political analyst, rather than a statistician.

Fortunately he's had the good sense to expand his enterprise into sports and other areas.

He started analyzing baseball (the Baseball Prospectus) and then went to analyze politics. Just to set the record straight on him.
142  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rick Santorum in Iowa on: January 02, 2016, 09:25:19 am
Santorum entered the fray too late this time, as he did in 2012.

 
143  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which state do Republicans have a better chance of flipping? on: January 02, 2016, 09:23:51 am
Both can and will be flipped

Barring some catastrophe in the next ten months, neither Pennsylvania nor Wisconsin will go for the Republican nominee for President. Pennsylvania will be closer.

We have yet to see any polls for either state from after the Congressional inquiry of Hillary Clinton -- but we see plenty of polls indicating at least an even race nationally for her against any Republican. The prospect for Hillary Clinton in both states is back to where it was before the media assumed that the Republicans would find something out.

In fact we have few statewide binary polls of any kind since the hearing that Republicans expected to doom Hillary Clinton.

Pennsylvania will be closer because Wisconsin Democrats more despise their Republican Governor than Pennsylvania Democrats love the performance of their Democratic Governor.

 
144  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Biden regret not running this cycle? on: January 02, 2016, 09:11:37 am
He was a fallback in the event that the investigations of Hillary Clinton for the private server and Benghazi  would implode her campaign for the Presidency. He probably knows that whatever time he had for becoming President has come and gone, and that he is not a viable candidate.   
145  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Carson campaign director and communications director quits campaign on: January 01, 2016, 06:16:37 pm
End of the line. 
146  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: How will Lake County, IL, vote in 2016 Senate? on: January 01, 2016, 05:04:21 pm
Duckworth will likely win 52/48. She will lose Lake 4-5 but Cook will come in big for her.

...probably Sangamon, Winnebago, Rock Island, Peoria, Will... as well.
147  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: TRUMP has a chance to win California with 20~30% possibility(vs Hillary) on: January 01, 2016, 12:41:05 am
How far is this projection off? If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee he might lose UTAH.  Republicans will do well in about every other race, and any Republican other than Trump would win the state's six electoral votes easily as in 70-30 even if Hillary Clinton should win 55-45 nationally.

I saw a poll in which Donald Trump gets only 56% of the vote. Mormons must be having trouble with Donald Trump for his lifestyle and his involvement in very un-Mormon activities, namely gambling. Should the LDS hierarchy turn against him, he loses Utah. At this point I am not saying that the LDS hierarchy turns on him so that it can say "I told you so" about running for President while having values contrary to Mormonism.

....White people in California have little hostility to Mexican-Americans. There's much intermarriage between non-Hispanic whites and Mexican-Americans -- even by the well-educated, sophisticated white people. 

     
148  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb! thinks all cities, black people are the same: "My bad" on: January 01, 2016, 12:06:49 am
That must be a shoestring campaign, as it seems to have no budget for fact-checkers pr a Teleprompter.

Say what you want, but President Obama would never make that mistake.
149  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: BREAKING: Clinton has just sealed the nomination on: December 31, 2015, 08:52:49 pm
Dick Morris could predict a hurricane forming in Hudson Bay.
150  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Poll: Trump NOT going to win Canada's 50 (or so) EVs, as Canadians hate him on: December 31, 2015, 08:51:43 pm
Mexico ought to be interesting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 507


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines