Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2014, 12:25:51 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 374
126  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Pennsylvania 2014 Discussion Thread on: March 23, 2014, 12:18:02 pm



So how can Tom Corbett win re-election? With his putrid approval rating, he shows that electing him was a mistake in 2010.  He might pick up 7% from his approval rating to his share of the vote in November against an average opponent in an average environment for his Party... and he would probably lose 57-43.

In 1986, Bob Casey, Sr, barely got 50% of the vote.  Less than 18 months prior to his re-election, he lost a major campaign for local government tax reform; it required a constitutional amendment that lost by about 70-30. 

In 1990, Bob Casey, Sr. won the greatest majority of any governor since 1926 and the greatest re-election since governors could be re-elected.  He won by greater than 2 to 1.

Incumbent politicians can recover from political failures. Just look at Barack Obama. He has promoted some legislation that has failed to get enacted, and he has made appointments that have failed. Good politicians take chances but never set themselves in a position in which everything collapses if one item on the agenda fails. 

They can't recover from scandals or mishandling them.
127  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Pennsylvania 2014 Discussion Thread on: March 22, 2014, 11:04:39 pm

Quote
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett has a negative 36 - 52 percent approval rating, nearly matching his worst net score ever, and trails several possible Democratic challengers, especially York County businessman Tom Wolf, who tops the Republican incumbent 52 - 33 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/pennsylvania/release-detail?ReleaseID=2012

So what does Nate Silver have to say about Corbett?



http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule/

Silver here discusses elections of 2006 to 2009.

The typical incumbent who was successful enough to get elected the first time can usually add 6-7% to early levels of approval to get a fair assessment of his vote share in the November election. (I would have expected reversion toward the mean, with those starting out way behind gaining the most and those far ahead seeing some support slip away). Such is the same whether the incumbent politician starts with 30% approval or 60% approval. An incumbent politician who starts with 44% approval will likely get 50% of the vote and win.

Politicians who seek re-election with approval below 35% are rare. Most spare themselves the trouble. 

Consider that appointed incumbents rarely do well. They didn't campaign for the office, and they may not know how to campaign -- and if they run, they usually gain little from their approval rating to the election. Maybe they need 50% approval with which to win.

An incumbent Governor or Senator is usually shown running against the average challenger and running a campaign of usual competence. To be sure, there can be incumbent politicians who face an unusually-strong challenger and run re-elections campaigns of unusual incompetence in a bad year for their Party and lose despite having 50% approval to begin with (George Allen in 2006). It's bad form for staffers to beat a heckler, and that probably did in the political career of George Allen. 

So why do politicians start with 51% of the vote and get approval ratings around 45% and win re-election? After they get elected they face much carping from the Other Side. That tears down approval ratings. Politicians can't be in campaign mode all the time; they must govern or legislate. But once the governing and legislating ends and campaigns begin, the opponent has to prove himself better than the incumbent. If good enough, an incumbent shows why he wins. If he is as awful as Governor Corbett, he shows that voting for him the last time was a huge mistake. 


   

So how can Tom Corbett win re-election? With his putrid approval rating, he shows that electing him was a mistake in 2010.  He might pick up 7% from his approval rating to his share of the vote in November against an average opponent in an average environment for his Party... and he would probably lose 57-43.
128  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Pennsylvania 2014 Discussion Thread on: March 22, 2014, 10:31:18 pm
Sawx, I'm NOT on drugs. Never used that crap ever in my lifetime, considering that I'm an USAF veteran.

You cannot rule out a comeback for Corbett.

Just saying. Same folks who were predicting that KBH was going to beat Perry in the 2010 GOP primary for governor, but Perry kicked KBH's ass by 21 points (51%-30%) went onto defeating Bill White by 13 points in the general election:55%-42%., carrying 226 out of 254 counties.

Corbett is in such bad shape politically that he would have to rig the election to be re-elected.
129  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Clinton leads all Republicans on: March 22, 2014, 10:28:20 pm
You consider those close margins to be leads? Have you ever followed a presidential election? Predicting whose going to win more than two years from now is like predicting when you'll take a dump two years from now.

Those margins indicate that the Republicans would probably lose North Carolina in the next election unless something changes the dynamics of the political scene.  The burden of proof is on you to show that something will happen that makes these numbers a poor representation of reality. Sure, there is plenty of time for much to change between now and November 2016.


Hillary Clinton has learned much from her 2008 campaign. She will have the Obama campaign on her side -- and I have never seen as competent a campaign apparatus in my lifetime.

If you predict that Hillary Clinton will lose, then you had better explain how the suggested opponents will do better in a campaign.

130  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Michigan gay marriage ban struck down on: March 22, 2014, 04:08:21 pm
So now that I can get married, the next step is finding someone to marry...and that is proving to be quite a difficult task.

Haha, poor fellow!

As for Tweed, he has a point in that people have a strange obsession over this issue as if it were the most important issue facing the nation today. It can become a bit tiring.

As a black person, I must say, I consider the endless comparison with the civil rights movement to be a bit grating at times. When gay people move into a neighborhood, property values went up. When black people moved into a neighborhood, property values went down.

That was a myth. Black people paid higher rents than white people for the same amount of floor space because of segregation. Houses that had once housed one white family were subdivided into apartments. Landlords literally rushed the depreciation of housing to get maximum income.

Shoehorning more people into a house made the house deteriorate rapidly -- which explains how some once-impressive mansions became slums. That has nothing to do with race.

...Housing prices did not plummet unless white people panicked. There were hucksters who did block-busting who might do the white home-owner an alleged great favor by buying a house worth $40K recently for $15K before the value really went down. The hustle was that the house would be quickly sold to a slumlord for $30K, only accelerating the decline of the neighborhood. 

A basic rule for anyone: nobody is in business of any kind to lose money. Anyone who pretends to do charity in real estate is likely a swindler. 

Quote
No, gay people weren't enslaved. No, gay people weren't hanged from trees. No, being gay isn't some sort of arbitrary social construct on which for decades determined what you could and could not do, where you could not go, and so forth. There is a point in Tweed's argument- your average openly gay person would be far more "socially acceptable" in the latte liberal circles that champion this than your average inner city black person.

Gays are still beaten for being gay. Race-based beatings are much rarer now. So far as I am concerned I see little difference between Michael Shepard (a gay young man beaten to death for being gay in Wyoming) and Michael Donald (a young black man beaten to death by a Klan group in Alabama).  In Nazi camps, Nazi guards have been known to set dogs upon prisoners for being gay.   

Quote
Obviously gay people have faced a lot of bigotry in this country and for our shame. But saying it is the defining issue of our time is an insult to the millions upon millions who have been unfortunate enough to not be the cause celebres of contemporary liberalism.

I don't have to be gay to be beaten and badly injured for being gay. I have run from the threat.  You are unlikely to be beaten by white racists for being black. But you could be beaten and badly injured by some fool who thinks that you are gay. Gay-bashers, like most criminals, are simply stupid and angry.

The problem isn't that the bigot thinks that I am gay; the problem is that anyone believes that homosexuality is a pretext for a ferocious beating. Homophobia and racism are  opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin of violent bigotry.
131  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback in 2016? on: March 22, 2014, 03:42:37 pm
Extremely unpopular; if he has a hard time being re-elected in Kansas for being too right-wing, then he will be a very difficult sell in 2016.
132  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Why are Asian Americans Democrats? on: March 22, 2014, 10:09:08 am
One thing a lot of people have not mentioned is that Asians value moderation and the current GOP is anything but moderate. That was certainly not the case a few decades ago. Even looking at Reagan, he said conservative things in a moderate way. On the other hand the Democrats are a moderate party. Of course Asian Americans will vote for that party.

Other things matter too, such as the anti-intellectualism of Bush which was followed up by the immigration debate which made the GOP look like the white party. And Palin talking about the real America....all the talk show hosts and Fox news heads blabbering about how bad white people have it these days. Oreilly talking about the end of the white establishment in 2012...I could just go on forever. It can be argued that in the 1980s blacks may have felt targeted by the GOP but Asians certainly did not. Now with the moaning about white America amongst conservatives, they most certainly are.

Something else -- Sarah Palin became one of the exemplars of the Republican Party. (1) Her mangled English might appeal to the semi-literate who use language something like she does. (2)Add to that, she made speeches in which she praised the "real" America of small-town and rural America that hasn't been the majority of America for almost a century. (3)Asian-Americans are very bourgeois.

(1) After the 2008 election many thought that she would be a likely candidate for President. I was following the polls on how she projected to do against Barack Obama, and I noticed something remarkable: that although she did no worse than other candidates in states with comparatively few people of foreign origin, she did catastrophically badly in states with large numbers of foreign-born people -- which I use as a proxy for people whose first language is not English.   (To be sure, there are people in the US who are native to the US and whose first language is not English, and there are people in the US who immigrated from elsewhere whose first language is English). Others similarly right-wing (such as Mike Huckabee) had no such problem. One may disagree with him, but one fully understands his impeccable English.

If there is a basic rule in talking with anyone whose first language is not English, it is to stay close to the formal register taught in phrase books and basic English texts -- whether the first language is German -- or Korean. How proficient the person is in English matters little; the non-native speaker must process what an English speaker says into thought patterns structured in a different grammar and vocabulary. With slang and mangled diction one must make two translations -- one to formal English and then to the early linguistic heritage of the speaker, which is far more difficult.  Sarah Palin is not someone whose diction and word choice I would want to introduce as English speech. 

I notice that she went to college in Hawaii... and found it miserable. Maybe there are so many people there whose native languages are Spanish, Portuguese, Tagalog, Chinese, or Korean. (In case you wonder about Japanese -- mass Japanese immigration to the US ended before World War II, and Japanese-Americans are safely assumed to be Anglophone).

(2) Urban America, except for parts of the South, contains the majority of the ethnic and non-Christian religious minorities.  Rural America is far more conformist... and conforming to a culture in which one is not raised is difficult. Sarah Palin insulted people not of her culture by castigating Americans outside her conception of "Real America".

(3) This may apply to Sarah Palin more than to other Republicans -- Asian-Americans are very bourgeois in their attitudes toward education and family life. I can't speak for Asian-Americans, but I saw the spectacle in the 2008 Republican National Convention in which one of Sarah's unmarried daughters came in with a baby  (OK, that can happen) -- but so did the unmarried young man who fathered the child. Bourgeois types would find the appearance of an unmarried woman with a child in a high-profile public event bad enough, but the unmarried seed-supplier as well? What happens in Hollywood and gets accepted because the person involved is a celebrity who earns millions is very different from what one accepts in the Real World.

A Party that vilifies education will offend educated people even if those people are conservative in lifestyle.     
133  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Michigan gay marriage ban struck down on: March 22, 2014, 09:26:13 am
Judges are not there to express the will of the people, legislatures are.

Then why have legislatures done such a terrible job of it?

it's all total nonsense.  my hunch is that baby Boomer liberals have this psychological need to see society progress to these previously unknown heights of tolerance, and by allowing a few thousand gay couples in each state marry they actually think they're making a Rosa Parks-esque imprint on society.

Standing for same-sex-marriage (SSM) is not the same as a black woman refusing to give up her seat to a white male on a Montgomery bus in the 1950s. American gays in states that do not yet allow same-sex marriage are far better off than Southern blacks in the 1950s.  So what?

Nobody chooses to be gay or lesbian. The laws against gay rights are still silly. Maybe they are not as silly as Jim Crow laws, but they are silly nonetheless. Silly laws can have tragic consequences.   

Quote
not a few liberals compared Edie Windsor directly to Parks.  keep in mind Windsor's case only reached the SCOTUS because she had to pay a $363k tax as a result of her partner dying!  Rosa Parks wouldn't have known which real estate agents to hire if she had $363k in 1955 dollars.  my father, himself a baby boomer Jewish liberal, said something to me like "your generation will take it for granted, but gay marriage is revolutionizing society in a way you probably can't understand".  I just glared at him, as I usually do when discussing any topic this side of minor-conference college basketball.

Rosa Parks would have never been able to buy a house that grand, at least in Alabama, because housing that good would have been barred to her.

SSM is revolutionizing nothing for me. I'm not a homosexual, and nothing is going to make me gay. I want gays and lesbians to get the respect as persons that they deserve so that it becomes increasingly unthinkable that anyone could abuse them.

I've been gay-bashed, at least to the extent of being threatened with a violent attack due to the perception of some fool that I am gay. I did the rational thing and ran. Of course, what's the point of being beaten? What am I to do -- try to convince some angry bigot that I am straight?

Quote
the end result of this is that gays are joining the post-WW2 Jews as the most privileged group in world history: not disadvantaged at all by any demonstrable economic statistic, yet enjoying multiple "extra" protections under the law.

European Jews were not so privileged between Nazi occupation and Allied liberation. Many of the surviving Jews would like to have had more time with close relatives and friends who perished in shooting pits, gas vans, and gas chambers.     

134  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: March 22, 2014, 06:46:15 am
Gallup has usually shown unusually low approval ratings. 45/49 is inconsistent with what this map shows in much of the country.

Either Gallup is wrong or the statewide approval ratings are obsolete. 

Low as the statewide approval ratings now shown are, they seem not to hurt the chances of other Democrats. It could be that they reflect overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the political process. The results of the political process now reek. 
135  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do conservatives hate Hollywood? on: March 22, 2014, 06:40:39 am
Well have you seen the way conservatives are portrayed in movies? How about why does Hollywood hate conservatives?

It has hated fascists since 1933, and people are using the word conservative as a euphemism for fascist.
By portraying fascists as conservatives, they are "hating" ("hating" is a bit too strong of a term) Conservatives.

In some countries, the conservatives (usually traditional elites, tycoons, and financiers) often found fascism attractive for destroying the civil liberties of peasants and industrial workers - most obviously the right to strike, the cornerstone of all effectiveness of labor unions.

Hollywood studios knew who bought the movie tickets. The big landowners and the tycoons didn't fill the movie theaters.   
136  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Fact-checking Ted "The Republicans are not the party of the rich!" Cruz on: March 21, 2014, 10:27:57 pm
The wealthy don't earn income so I'm not really sure what these charts are supposed to say.

Would it be less troublesome to call what the rich do "grabbing" money?
137  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do conservatives hate Hollywood? on: March 21, 2014, 10:26:07 pm
Well have you seen the way conservatives are portrayed in movies? How about why does Hollywood hate conservatives?

It has hated fascists since 1933, and people are using the word conservative as a euphemism for fascist.



138  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Michigan gay marriage ban struck down on: March 21, 2014, 10:19:53 pm
The will of the people activists in black robes prevails again. The people via their reps banned it.

Same-sex marriage has a majority approval in Michigan.

Bad laws ask to be challenged.

...If you are not a homosexual, then how does same-sex marriage hurt you?
139  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: March 21, 2014, 06:06:31 pm
Quote
DETROIT (AP) Michigan's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a federal judge said Friday, striking down a law that was widely embraced by voters a decade ago in the latest in a series of similar decisions across the country.

But unlike cases in other states, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman did not suspend his decision while the Michigan attorney general pursues an appeal. That means clerks could start issuing licenses Monday unless a higher court intervenes.

Friedman released his 31-page ruling exactly two weeks after a rare trial that mostly focused on the impact of same-sex parenting on children. The challenge was brought by two Detroit-area nurses originally seeking to overturn Michigan's ban on joint adoptions by gay couples.

The judge noted that supporters of same-sex marriage believe the Michigan ban was at least partly the result of animosity toward gays and lesbians.

"Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage," Friedman said. "Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law."

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on gay marriage have been overturned in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.

Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican, asked a federal appeals court to freeze Friedman's decision and prevent same-sex couples from marrying while he appeals the case.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-michigans-ban-gay-marriage-210904633.html

This one will likely stick.
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What is the probability that Hillary won't win the nomination? on: March 21, 2014, 01:59:38 pm
Strictly actuarial.
141  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin planning 2016 runs on: March 21, 2014, 12:26:06 pm
Sarah Palin -- the "Lena Lamont" (Singin' in the Rain) of American politics.

"What do you think I am -- dumb or sumthin'?"
142  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: FiveThirtyEight (Nate Silver) is back. on: March 21, 2014, 12:19:37 pm
So here's how I concluded that Romney was a longshot in August 2012:



red -- Romney sure thing
blue -- Obama sure thing
white -- pure toss-up
gray -- insufficient polling

Barack Obama was one state away from closing the election, and the five states in white could each do so. As 50-50 propositions, random chance alone suggested that Barack Obama had 31 chances in 32 of being re-elected or nearly a 97% chance of winning.  The nature of the election had to change for Romney to have more than a long-shot chance, and the Obama campaign machine sealed the deal in Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia -- and Mitt Romney lost Florida (I think through some eleventh-hour Spanish-language ads that tried to link President Obama to vile dictators Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez but blew up instead). Obama ended up with four of the five.

States in gray? I just didn't see enough polling. Any one of those (except NE-02) would have decided the election, but he was not going to win Arizona without also winning Colorado, Indiana without winning Ohio, or Missouri without also winning Ohio, Virginia, or North Carolina.  

So what would force the opposite conclusion?

This:




Rick Scott has an economic miracle and is wildly popular -- and Obama is largely unwelcome in Florida. The automotive industry is in bad enough shape that Michigan is at risk of voting for anyone who promises to undo Obama's economic bungling... and Ohio is gone. There's a religious revival in Pennsylvania that convinces enough people that Barack Obama is the Antichrist that the state is at risk of going R for the first time since 1984. Virginia has reverted to its 'usual' pattern of voting for the Republican nominee for President, and North Carolina is long gone.  Things are close enough in New Hampshire that it's a 50-50 proposition again, and Barack Obama can't afford to lose the state. Because Iowa and Wisconsin are so similar to each other that they vote together about every time (the states were decided by a few thousand votes in 2004 and went opposite ways -- barely -- that year) I effectively treat Iowa and Wisconsin as one state -- and they aren't going very well for the President. Colorado is a Vegas crap-shoot that must go right.

Except for Wisconsin and Iowa which I treat as if one state (and if Obama loses either he loses the election).  

This time the 'inadequate polling' applies to Minnesota, which isn't going R unless Wisconsin and Iowa both do -- and in the last few days New Jersey, where President Obama has lost much credibility due to mishandling of Superstorm Sandy. If he loses New Jersey he also loses the election.

Five independent events (again I combine Iowa and Wisconsin) function as coin tosses. Does anyone want to bet on calling five heads coin tosses?

In this scenario, President Obama makes promises that few people believe that he can accomplish and begins to look like a dangerous radical who has given up the moderation that he ran on in 2008. Successful politicians incumbents on their records and win; unsuccessful incumbents run from their records and lose.   
143  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: FiveThirtyEight (Nate Silver) is back. on: March 21, 2014, 11:19:29 am
Our new Keith Olbermann. Switching from the invigorating world of politics (though Olbermann was technically fired) to focus on batting averages, touchdowns, the draft, endzones and all that other crap that nobody cares about. It's terrible. He would rather jump the bandwagon than write about what actually is important.

I'm just reading through some of these recent political articles of his and not only are there fewer of them, but he just doesn't seem that interested in writing about any of it since he's mainly just elaborating on a bunch of polls and data and not even going in depth. We need more political articles AND more length and structure to them!

Olbermann, like Silver, got his start in the world of sports and I would assume that's where both of their real passions lie.  If anything the political stuff was, for the both of them, the switch away from "invigorating" things.

If you read The Signal and the Noise, you'll note that Silver admits he didn't originally care thaaat much about politics and got into it partially because the bar for competing analysis was just so laughably low, that he could make a mark for the better while still only giving eighty percent.

His 80% is far richer than many others' 100% (or for that matter, to use some barbarous talk from the sports world, "110%"). The bar was indeed low. I've learned a few things from Nate Silver, one of which is that 'seat-of-the-pants' analysis is unreliable. In 1992 I was surprised that Bill Clinton could win the Presidency because I knew that he was not going to win Texas as Jimmy Carter did, and I thought that Clinton reminded me much of Carter.

Most people discussing the 2012 Presidential election from the Right were proclaiming such bilge as "Obama is so horrible that I can't imagine how anyone could vote for him!" Replace that with "1984" and Ronald Reagan (!!!) and many were saying much the same only to be surprised after one after another state that 'could never fall for Reagan" did. In 1984 such was more excusable because polling was still primitive.

In 2012 I was telling people that Mitt Romney typically held about a 3% chance of winning the Presidential election based upon the dynamics of the time (electoral polarization of most states and random scatter of those few states that could decide the election) -- and that Romney had to win every one of those states to have a chance. Figuring for most of the year that all of the states in question were 50-50 propositions and that there was no way to win them all by tailoring a message to fit all of those states at once, I could simply take the number of such states (X) as a power of 0.50 and give Mitt Romney's chance of election as 0.5^X.

    

Quote
Oh, and if you had any idea of what you're talking about you wouldn't be using "batting average" as an example here.  I don't follow baseball much and even I know the statheads have justly consigned it to the Stone Age.  Tongue

Precisely. Batting average as a conventional assessment of the batting skills of a hitter says little about a player unless it is outside of a range from about .230 to .320. It is possible for someone to be one of the better hitters in the game while hitting .250 even if such is below average -- if one is hitting for power and drawing walks in huge numbers because walks put runners on base and extra-base hits do much more damage than do singles -- and for someone hitting .295 (far above average) to be of little value if a singles hitter who makes a huge number of baserunning mistakes and grounds into an inordinate number of double plays. Furthermore, there are park effects that establish that the usual .260 hitter for the Cubs or Red Sox is a substandard hitter while the usual .260 hitter for the Tigers or Dodgers is above average as a hitter.  

Quote
(Also, I'm pretty sure that even most lefties know by now that Olbermann is an imperious jerk not worth listening to; his departure from political commentary was no great loss.)

Olbermann probably heard a bunch of right-wingers who get listened to despite being imperious jerks and figured that he could do it better. Liberals have even less tolerance for that stuff.
144  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why do conservatives hate Hollywood? on: March 21, 2014, 08:32:35 am
Maybe because Hollywood presents a reality of thought and imagination other than what Corporatist/Fundamentalist America wants to push upon us all as reality -- All For the Few now so that there can be Pie in the Sky When You Die.   
145  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Walker's job numbers below national average again, he blames Obamacare on: March 21, 2014, 08:28:02 am
Governor Scott Walker's idea of how to create prosperity: first promote the draining of the state's prosperity to outside plutocrats. Then expect those plutocrats to shower the state with generosity in the form of investment and lower-paying jobs. Such is the neoliberal idea behind American neocolonialism in the Third World.

If it works to the detriment of people in Guatemala, then it can't work well for people in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin is not singled out for harm from Obamacare; even if it hurts Wisconsin (questionable in itself) it hurts 49 other states just as much. It is not an excuse for bad policies on other matters. Walker might as well blame the hard winter. (Really -- nobody would ever move to Wisconsin, most of which has a classic fire-and-ice climate.

Scott Walker -- making Wisconsin a State that people want to leave. 

 
146  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Why are Asian Americans Democrats? on: March 21, 2014, 08:16:49 am
Let's not forget the Muslim American vote has a role in this too.


While I'm not sure how many Asians are Muslims, and IIRC most Muslim Americans are actually black Americans, the fact that they went from voting something like 90% for George W. Bush in 2000 to some 85% for John Kerry in 2004 sure hasn't helped the GOP.

Turks, Kurds,  Iranians, and Arabs are generally considered white.

What this means is that the only major group of Muslims who check "Asian" on the census form are those of South Asian descent. I would be shocked if the proportion of Asian-Americans who are Muslim exceeded 5%.

Indonesians? Malays? Hui Chinese?

(Of course ethnic non-Muslim Chinese are large minorities of the population of Malaysia and Indonesia). 
147  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Why are Asian Americans Democrats? on: March 20, 2014, 09:26:54 pm
Let's not forget the Muslim American vote has a role in this too.


While I'm not sure how many Asians are Muslims, and IIRC most Muslim Americans are actually black Americans, the fact that they went from voting something like 90% for George W. Bush in 2000 to some 85% for John Kerry in 2004 sure hasn't helped the GOP.

Turks, Kurds,  Iranians, and Arabs are generally considered white.
148  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: March 20, 2014, 01:18:37 pm
I have enough data points for incorporating Mike Huckabee into the four-way contrast. The polls in question include five legitimate swing states:

Iowa, which is at most on the fringe of competition if the Democrat wins the Presidency, and was very close in the last two Democratic losses of the Presidential election (D+3); tipping-point state in 2008

Colorado, very close to the national average in 2008 and 2012 and the tipping point state of 2012 (R+2)

Virginia, which may have gone D in only four Presidential elections since World War II, but will now be close in a close election (R+3)

North Carolina, which needs to be a clear R victory for Republicans to truly have a chance to get elected  (R+5)

Arizona, a state whose demographics can hurt the Republicans badly in 2016 (about R+10 in 2008 and 2012, but that could be about R+5 in 2016)

A Republican nominee really needs to win four of these five states (and Florida and Ohio) to have a reasonable chance of winning the Presidency in 2016 -- and the only one of these states that the Republicans can afford to lose is Iowa -- unless he's picking up such states as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The map does not rule that out for Huckabee yet, but if he is losing all the states that he is behind in now on Election Day, 2016 he might concede the election before the results come in from the West Coast.
149  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: March 20, 2014, 12:48:20 pm
Most polls come from PPP (indeed, all but one) and all are from February or March 2014.

Colorado, PPP:
Clinton 48  - Huckabee 41

Louisiana, PPP:
Huckabee- 49% - Clinton- 44%

Kansas, PPP:
Huckabee- 49% Clinton- 42%

Iowa, PPP:
Hillary Clinton.................................................. 46%
Mike Huckabee ............................................... 42%

Christopher Newport University, Virginia:
Clinton 52% Huckabee 37%

Arizona, PPP:
Hillary Clinton... leads  Mike Huckabee (47/41)

North Carolina, PPP:
Clinton 49 Huckabee 42

Alaska, PPP:
Huckabee 45% Clinton 41%

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



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

150  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: March 20, 2014, 12:07:40 pm
Blank map -- setting it up for Mike Huckabee as a potential candidate against Hillary Clinton. He gets attention now. Purpose: to remove consideration for Paul Ryan, whom I no longer consider relevant as a candidate for the Presidency in 2016. Seeking the Presidency and seeking power within the House seem incompatible, and except for Dick Cheney (chosen by Dubya for administrative talents more than for the ability to campaign or deliver a critical state) and Gerald Ford (freakish situation) we haven't had a successful campaigner for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency who has never gone 'beyond' the House of Representatives in an electoral career.

Mike Huckabee has been a Governor, indeed of a State whence one of the most successful campaigners ever came from despite having few electoral votes in that state. (That of course is Bill Clinton of Arkansas).

The map. Backtracking begins shortly.

Blank map.



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
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 374


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines