Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 28, 2016, 04:49:02 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 11 ... 532
126  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Your Reaction if This is the Result on: June 02, 2016, 07:42:17 am
Sad that we have lost America.  It will be a bastion of leftism and political correctness (anti-white, anti-business) and multi-culturalism.  It will be a hate crime to be a white opposite sex married couple within 10 years.

The "Real America" that Sarah Palin so lauded still exists. There remain some very lily-white, politically-conservative bastions: most obviously white rural America. Of course that is not where the opportunities and culture lies (unless your idea of culture is what you can buy at Wal*Mart).   

127  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: MI-Glengariff Group/WDIV-TV: Clinton up 4, Sanders up 19 on: June 01, 2016, 08:08:35 pm
The 19% margin involving Sanders suggests the perfect storm as a political disaster for the GOP.  Michigan went 57-41 in 2008. probably a max-out for any Democratic nominee not facing Barry Goldwater.
128  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: June 01, 2016, 06:18:11 pm

Glengarriff, Michigan

2-way:

43% Clinton (D)
39% Trump (R)

52% Sanders (D)
33% Trump (R)

3-way:

37% Clinton (D)
33% Trump (R)
12% Johnson (L)

...

Favourable Ratings:

50-40 Obama
43-41 Sanders
33-49 Snyder
31-57 Clinton
27-60 Trump

...I got polled on this one! I'm guessing that "43" is the floor for Clinton -- and in view of the large number of blacks in Michigan, "39" is close to the ceiling for Trump.

At this point I see three-way races in which Gary Johnson gets more than 10% of the vote in Michigan. He's probably getting more support from the usual voters for Republican nominees. 33% Johnson and 12% Trump is close to what we would expect near the top for the non-Democratic vote in Michigan.

California, Marist, NBC/Wall Street Journal

Clinton 55, Trump 31

https://www.scribd.com/doc/314520082/NBC-News-WSJ-Marist-California-Poll-Annotated-Questionnaire-June-2016

Georgia, PPP:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/06/trump-has-solid-lead-over-clinton-in-georgia.html

Trump: 45%
Clinton: 38%
Johnson: 6%
Stein: 2%


Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump




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



129  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: MI-Glengariff Group/WDIV-TV: Clinton up 4, Sanders up 19 on: June 01, 2016, 03:01:18 am
As a point of reference, Obama was polling worse at this time in MI in 2008:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html

Rasmussen   6/9 - 6/9           500 LV   --   42   45   Obama +3
SurveyUSA   5/27 - 5/27   529 RV   --   41   37   McCain +4
Detroit News   5/19 - 5/22   600 RV   --   44   40   McCain +4
Rasmussen   5/7 - 5/7           500 LV   4.5   45   44   McCain +1

Final Result in November: Obama+16.4

Of course the economy had yet to go into an undeniable tailspin...
130  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: MI-Glengariff Group/WDIV-TV: Clinton up 4, Sanders up 19 on: June 01, 2016, 01:56:37 am
Obama's approvals are better than Reagan's at the same point in 1988. If he sits at 52-53% come October then it's hard to imagine Clinton or any other Democrat losing.

Eisenhower had at least a 60% approval rating for most of 1960.

Eisenhower was still admired more for his generalship than for his Presidency.  The 60% approval is consistent with his landslide wins in 1952 and 1956.

I have my theory on why Nixon lost in 1960: he was ugly. Not in behavior, but in appearance. Hillary Clinton doesn't look all that bad.

Add to that, few Vice-Presidents ever succeed their predecessor as President by through an election after the completion of the predecessor's term.
131  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Stephen Hawking: Trump is a demagogue on: May 31, 2016, 08:27:08 pm
If I were a Trump supporter, the disdain that one of the greatest theoretical physicists shows about my political hero would be worth as much as the disdain that the greatest living linguist (Noam Chomsky) likely holds against Donald Trump. Proof that brilliant people can be completely wrong about politics, which is more a moral choice than anything else.

Well -- think about it. Would the negative endorsement of the greatest theoretical physicist since Newton have caused a Nazi to reject Hitler? That physicist was Albert Einstein.

OK, Donald Trump really is an unprincipled demagogue, which is a very good reason to vote for a very flawed opponent of him.   
132  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Kentucky a Lean D state this year? on: May 31, 2016, 05:33:29 pm
Kentucky goes D for the Presidency only in a general collapse of the Republican Party, the sort in which Hillary Clinton threatens to pick up a map that looks as if she has pieced together the Carter coalition while keeping the Obama coalition.

I can say this: Kentucky is one of the first states to fully close its polls on Election Night. If it is too close to call at 7PM, then we are going to see her win about 400 electoral votes -- minimum, and Kentucky will not have to offer any of them in the end.   
133  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary says she can win TX on: May 31, 2016, 05:27:57 pm
She wins North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Indiana, and NE-02 before she wins Texas.  She probably also wins Montana and the Dakotas, too.

Texas will be the difference between about 395 and 435 electoral votes in a Democratic win.
134  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WI- Public Opinion Strategies: Clinton +12 on: May 30, 2016, 10:03:53 am
Scott Walker is very much an Establishment Republican. 
135  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WI- Public Opinion Strategies: Clinton +12 on: May 29, 2016, 12:02:51 pm
Wisconsin up 12 D -- Wisconsin must be very close to a Republican win if not a state voting R if the Republican nominee is to win the Presidency.

Wisconsin, 56-44 D? 2008 redux. That means that Florida and Ohio are both going for the Democrat.
136  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: OR-Clout Research: Clinton low energy; Oregon wants to make America great again on: May 29, 2016, 11:58:36 am
This could be a pollster trying to give a Party an undue advantage. The surprise comes when a biased pollster corroborates what most of us recognize. Thus if a Democratic lobbying firm gets a result of Texas supporting Trump by 15 points then such could be a signal that efforts to flip Texas are futile -- and don't bother. 
137  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: VA-Gravis Marketing Clinton Leads 45-41 on: May 27, 2016, 10:16:44 am
Trump's weaknesses in VA are exaggerated on this forum.

That's probably true as of now.  Sketchy polling company, but this looks just like 2012 in the head to head and a lot like 2008 with Johnson (who will surely drop, and takes 2:1 from Trump here).  So it's probably enough to trend D again but Clinton's not winning it by 10 when she's +1-2 nationally.

Virginia has been drifting D, and demographics (people moving in from mostly D states and taking their political values with them) cause the trend. Virginia could now vote more strongly Democratic than the US as a whole.

Virginia going 55-45 for Hillary Clinton indicates a landslide characteristic of Bill Clinton in the 1990s or Obama in 2008 (365 to 380 electoral votes), if not bigger. Bigger? I don;t see that yet.   
138  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would you laugh if the map ended up the exact same as 2012? on: May 27, 2016, 09:48:54 am
Since 1930 we have seen two states and one Congressional district changing (2008 to 2012), three states (2000 to 2004) , four states (1932 to 1936, 1952 to 1956) and five states (1980 to 1984 and 1992 to 1996)... but all of these involved an incumbent. Usually for an open-seat election, personalities between the two main candidates differ from one electoral year to another. Is Hillary Clinton the same sort of cultural match for the states as Barack Obama was, or is Donald Trump really much like Mitt Romney? I doubt it.

Favorite Son status is unlikely to decide any state in 2012.

Electoral polarization among the states might do it this time. States within the margin of error in 2012 were

0.88% Florida
2.04% North Carolina
2.97% Ohio
3.87% Virginia

Four states were between 5% and 6% from being even (CO. PA, NH, IA); four were between 6.5% and 8.0% (NV, WI, MN, GA); only three more were under 10% (AZ, MO, MI). This year not many states  are even on the fringe of contention.  Big swings are possible in some states that went 10% or more one way or the other -- and that would at most make them close.



139  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL- Florida Chamber of Commerce: Clinton +2 on: May 26, 2016, 07:51:32 am
People tend to vote more Republican as they get older (and wiser).


Not so fast. People can become more entrenched in liberal causes as they get older. Unions. Minority advocacy groups.

It's telling that in 2008, income was practically of no value as a proxy for Republican voting. Completion of formal education had a negative correlation to Republican voting. In 1950 the best-educated states voted for Dwight Eisenhower and the least-educated states voted for Adlai Stevenson. That is almost the opposite of 2008 and 2012.

"Older and wiser" implies having more ability to detect the contradictory statements and promises of a demagogue, and when the Republican proves to be a demagogue... just think of how that will work in the general election.

"Older and wiser" also implies having more ability to detect a crook. And I'll take a demagogue before I take a crook any day of the week and twice on Tuesday.

Youve consistently taken the King of Crooks over anything else so far. Which suggests, in your own terms, certain lack of wisdom - whether it is accompanies by youth, I shall not hazard my opinion about.

Do you even know what a crook is? I guess, you are one of those "more entrenched in liberal causes as they get older" types pbrower is talking about. Blind for transgressions of your chosen candidate.

I am not sure whether by "crook" you mean the more liberal nominee. I don't see liberals more likely to take bribes, commit embezzlement, or make sweetheart deals with special interests. If by 'crookedness' you imply deviation from some right-libertarian orthodoxy, then you have an ideological definition of political criminality.

It's hard to predict who will take bribes, embezzle, or cut sweetheart deals with cronies. Damage does not require overt criminality; thus the real estate bubble involving the Bush II administration that depended upon predatory sub-prime lending and a gutting of investment outside of the housing/lending racket.

It is not fair to call someone a crook for being where he is on the political spectrum unless someone shows signs of support for violation of human rights or for starting wars of aggression, or being associated with groups (Nazis, fascists, commies) infamous for violations of human rights and for aggressive warfare.
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Trump +2/ +4 without Johnson and Stein on: May 26, 2016, 07:35:35 am
The last two really-close binary elections:


2004, NC   --  Dubya 56,  Kerry 43
2000, NC   --  Dubya 56,  Gore 43


To win the Presidency, Trump needs to win all the potentially-critical states of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia... or make big strides in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania that have not gone for a Republican nominee for President more than once since at least 1988.

The 1990s:

1996, NC -- Clinton 44, Gore 48, Perot 7
1992, NC -- Clinton 42.7, Bush 43.4, Perot 14
141  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: May 26, 2016, 07:28:42 am
California, PPIC:

Conducted May 13-22, MoE +/- 4.3%
Clinton 49%
Trump 39%

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/other/Crosstabs_LikelyVoters0516.pdf

Not so overwhelming.


New Jersey, Fairleigh-Dickinson University.

Clinton 48%
Trump 37%

http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/160525/

Likewise.

Virginia, Gravis Marketing:

Clinton 45
Trump 41

Clinton 44
Trump 38
Johnson 6

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/virginia-election-poll052016/

I doubt that there will  be many states in which Johnson makes a difference.


Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump




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


142  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: May 25, 2016, 06:18:27 pm
2004, NC   -- 56  Dubya, 43 Kerry.
2000, NC   -- 56  Dubya, 43 Gore


To win the Presidency, Trump needs to win all the potentially-critical states of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia... or make big strides in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania that have not gone for a Republican nominee for President more than once since at least 1988.
143  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: OH- Zogby Analytics: Clinton +5 on: May 25, 2016, 06:10:20 pm
More corroboration than insight. 
144  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: May 25, 2016, 03:40:38 pm
North Carolina, PPP:

Donald Trump (R): 43%
Hillary Clinton (D): 41%
Gary Johnson (L): 3%
Jill Stein (G): 2%

Donald Trump (R): 47%
Hillary Clinton (D): 43%

Bernie Sanders (D): 43%
Donald Trump (R): 40%
Gary Johnson (L): 3%
Jill Stein (G): 2%

Bernie Sanders (D): 48%
Donald Trump (R): 44%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/05/trump-burr-have-small-leads-in-north-carolina.html


I'm going with the three-way choice. Trump will need to win NC by about 7% to have a real chance nationwide.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump




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

145  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WI- Public Opinion Strategies: Clinton +12 on: May 25, 2016, 03:36:28 pm
Iowa and Wisconsin go almost in tandem, the one time in which they went differently in recent years (2004) showing them both very close to 50-50 ties that year.
146  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL- Florida Chamber of Commerce: Clinton +2 on: May 25, 2016, 03:33:08 pm
People tend to vote more Republican as they get older (and wiser).


Not so fast. People can become more entrenched in liberal causes as they get older. Unions. Minority advocacy groups.

It's telling that in 2008, income was practically of no value as a proxy for Republican voting. Completion of formal education had a negative correlation to Republican voting. In 1950 the best-educated states voted for Dwight Eisenhower and the least-educated states voted for Adlai Stevenson. That is almost the opposite of 2008 and 2012.

"Older and wiser" implies having more ability to detect the contradictory statements and promises of a demagogue, and when the Republican proves to be a demagogue... just think of how that will work in the general election.
147  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WI- Public Opinion Strategies: Clinton +12 on: May 25, 2016, 03:19:09 pm
Someone is above 40, so it has value. A poll in which nobody is above 40 is useless even if valid.
148  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: If Trump wins in a landslide, what happens in 2020? on: May 24, 2016, 08:05:55 pm
-snip-

Holy hell are you a hack. Just because you can't imagine a thing happening does not preclude it from happening. As a white person you may not be aware of this, but white people are extremely jumpy, easily scared by the smallest of things. Think of all the white people who roll their windows up when they have to get off the interstate in a less-white part of town. Those people, collectively, are Trump's ceiling. 70ish% of the white vote breaking to Trump produces a map like mine.

1. Donald Trump has made some contradictory promises that ensure that many who vote for him will be terribly disappointed with him when he fails to deliver. That is good for losing about 10% of the vote share from 2016 to 2020. That is the difference between winning 55-45 and losing 55-45, roughly the difference between Winning like Bush in 1988 and losing like Dukakis in 1988, except that everyone would know that Trump was going to lose.

2. Donald Trump has no experience in public office and no history of military leadership. If something goes wrong he will have no clue on how to deal with an economic meltdown, a military disaster, or a diplomatic debacle. He holds in contempt the one ex-President that he could reliably turn to for advice in the event of some disaster who might solve some problems if asked. (Due to extreme age I do not trust either Jimmy Carter or George H W Bush to be around for long, and Bill Clinton has a bum ticker. If I have some respect for Carter, the elder Bush, and Clinton in the role of President emeritus, I have none for Dubya, which is a commonplace assessment).   Obama is the only likely ex-President that I would trust to be around and be competent much beyond early 2021. Trump will more likely turn to ideological purists who will neglect nearly a majority of Americans.

3. He will have a stormy relationship with Congress, especially if things go sour by November 2018.

4. Race? Do you really think that black middle-class people aren't scared of really-bad black neighborhoods, too? Do you really think that black crooks don't prey on black people? Black people are generally better at identifying black thugs than white people are. I know parts of Detroit that I would take people to. The rest? No.

But -- middle-class blacks do not trust the current GOP.

5. In any event I don't see Donald Trump winning by a landslide. But if he gets elected, just barely, then he will either be Hoover redux on the economy or Carter redux on foreign affairs. Roosevelt 1932 and Reagan 1980 got similar results.

How unpopular could Trump be? Americans would be ready for a Third Term -- of Barack Obama -- were it not for the pesky 22nd Amendment. Figuring what a disaster Donald Trump could be as President and the consequences of such on State and federal elections, Americans could be so much in desire for Obama that they would repeal the 22nd Amendment quickly after the 2018 elections.

... if I can't imagine a July blizzard in Phoenix, do I lack imagination? Or am I a realist?
149  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Morning Consult: Clinton 38%, Trump 35%, Johnson 10% on: May 24, 2016, 11:42:46 am
We could have a three-way Presidential race this time. Welcome back to the 1990s.
150  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NBC/SurveyMonkey national poll: Clinton 47% Trump 43% on: May 24, 2016, 11:05:22 am
It is far easier to get from 47 to 50 than from 43 to 50.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 532


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines