Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 03:44:50 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 410
126  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Michigan-PPP: Hillary leads all by double digits on: September 16, 2014, 02:19:45 pm
Michigan in recent binary Presidential elections:

Year      Pct D   Pct R  Margin   National Result

2012      54       45        9        D+4
2008      57       41      16        D+7  
2004      51       48        3        R+3
2000      51       46        5       even* 
1988      46       54        8         R+7

A Democratic nominee  needs to win Michigan by at least 5% to win nationwide. Unlike the case in 2000, "even" in nationwide voting favors a Democrat.   Michigan is roughly D+5.

*We all know how the 2000 election turned out. Because of Ross Perot, neither the 1992 nor 1996 election was really binary.     


More specific:

1988: Michigan vs. National R+0.17


Since after the 1980s, Michigan has been a Democratic base state. The numbers:

1992 Michigan vs. National: D+1.83
1996 Michigan vs. National: D+4.69
2000 Michigan vs. National: D+4.62
2004 Michigan vs. National: D+5.88
2008 Michigan vs. National: D+9.18
2012 Michigan vs. National: D+5.61

Average margin spread, from 1992 to 2012, was: D+5.30

The state of Michigan is now a partisan-voting index of 5 to 6 percentage points more Democratic relative the percent margins from the U.S. Popular Vote.


Which means that when someone calls Michigan a "Purple State," you can safely assume that they're completely divorced from reality and press the Ignore button.

Or start laughing as if one were talking about Kansas being a purple state. Oh, wait!
127  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 16, 2014, 02:11:47 pm
The most recent poll by PPP of North Carolina compels me to rate North Carolina as a pure toss-up with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Christie and Paul lose, but Bush and Huckabee get bare edges. Mixed results imply a tie.

Here's my projection of the 2016 election based upon what I see in Hillary Clinton against the main four potential nominees in current polls. I pay no attention to Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, or Scott Walker, as they lose by ludicrous margins in all but sure-R states.  

Adjusting for Alaska. I ignore Sarah Palin. I also ignore the Gravis poll for Wisconsin because the one binary choice involves Paul Ryan, who has never done well anywhere and is a classic non-choice for the Presidency.



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4%

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls

Gray -- no polling

Now, based on how states did in 2008 and 2012 and how analogous states do, I fill in the rest:



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie  66
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012, or a split 81
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4% 14

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 50
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 76

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 199
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 32

Gray --  I have no idea (no suitable analogues) 12


I see America much less polarized now than it was in 2008 or 2012.  
128  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 16, 2014, 02:02:07 pm
NC, PPP

-The 2016 Presidential race in North Carolina continues to look like it will be close if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, but the numbers are a little bit better for Republicans this month. Clinton trails both Jeb Bush (45/43) and Mike Huckabee (46/45) by modest margins. She leads Rand Paul (46/41), Chris Christie (45/38), and Ted Cruz (48/40) in hypothetical head to heads.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/09/hagan-lead-steady-at-4-points.html

Hillary seems to have slipped a bit.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


   

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul




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





129  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: MI: Mitchell: Snyder leading by 5 on: September 16, 2014, 08:40:14 am
Just another poll from one of the bad one-state Michigan pollsters... 
130  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 15, 2014, 01:45:06 pm
Gravis Marketing, Arkansas

Paul (R)- 48%
Clinton (D)- 42%

Bush (R)- 49%
Clinton (D)- 42%

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/telephone-survey-arkansas-political-poll/


Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


   

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul




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




131  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Judiciary transformation under President Obama on: September 15, 2014, 01:35:46 pm
Good news, but it would be nice if we could also move SCOTUS to the left (or even the center). 


Such would require the death of retirement of one of the 'conservative' Justices.
132  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 15, 2014, 08:32:36 am
Why do you think the Northern states and California are trending Republican in the polls, in theory, compared to the southern states?

I don't really take stock in polls that are taken 2 years away from the election but I find it interesting, states like California getting a +14% jump for Republicans. I don't expect it to stay like that but I'm wondering why that is.

Is it just a matter of the Democrats maxed out their vote with Obama in 2008 and 2012 since their base was extremely enthusiastic in both elections, and it's possible they are not as enthused heading into 2016? Or just a way the pollsters are polling?

Reversion to the mean?

Barack Obama is about as polarizing a politician as there has been.
133  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why the Clinton hype? on: September 14, 2014, 06:27:16 pm
I understand speculating on a Clinton candidacy, that's fine. But why is she being treated like this messianic, invincible goddess? Is it because she is a woman? Clinton-era nostalgia? The fact that the Democrats know she is their only shot at keeping the White House?

...to complete the job that the GOP prevented President Obama from doing.
134  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kaine vs. Kasich on: September 13, 2014, 10:40:38 pm
Both are boring old white men, exactly what we need again Roll Eyes, but I think Kasich would win pretty narrowly, or it would be a tied map.



Colorado, Wisconsin, and Florida would probably be the three closest states, respectively.

That makes more sense -- with Scott Walker rigging the election in Wisconsin.
135  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders backs Obama on ISIS on: September 13, 2014, 10:39:15 pm
Nobody can say anything good about ISIS.
136  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kaine vs. Kasich on: September 13, 2014, 04:57:08 pm
This would be close.

I think Kaine is a slightly superior politician. He has won statewide office three times, winning the bigger races by better margins than Kasich in Ohio in 2010. Republicans need to win Ohio, while Democrats can afford to lose Virginia.

Kaine's weakness is that Democrats have held the White House for the last two terms. As a Senator/ former DNC chair, he can't exactly run as an outsider.

I'd give Kasich the edge due to the tendency of parties to do worse in the third term.



Kasich/ Martinez- 282 Electoral Votes
Kaine/ Klobuchar- 256 Electoral Votes

Explain to me how does Kaine lose Pennsylvania I'd argue he's a much better fit for PA than Obama ever was I'd think he improves among whites there and Eastern PA.
Kaine's in a worse position than Obama was. He's  a candidate who lacks the advantage of incumbency running to get his party another term in the White House.

I'd also imagine decreased African American turnout without Obama on the ballot. In 2012, African Americans were 13% of the voters (slightly higher than their share of the population) and 93% went for Obama.

Kasich would also have an advantage in Pennsylvania coming from a neighboring state. Even if Kaine's a better fit for PA than Obama, Kasich's a better fit for the state than Romney, McCain or George W Bush.

Neighboring state?

In 2008 Barack Obama of course won Illinois by an overwhelming majority, Iowa and Wisconsin by decisive majorities, barely won Indiana, barely lost Missouri, and lost Kentucky by a huge margin. Arkansas and Tennessee come close to Illinois on their extremes, and Obama lost both handily. Technically, Michigan has a water boundary with Illinois, and Obama won it by a margin in the high teens. 

John McCain won Arizona decisively, won Utah by a huge margin, but lost Colorado (at a point)  decisively and lost California, Nevada, and New Mexico by huge margins.

Bill Clinton never won Mississippi, Oklahoma, or Texas. He should have been a good cultural match for Texas.
137  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Molotov cocktail thrown into Rep. Cleaver's (D-MO) office on: September 13, 2014, 04:22:56 pm
Fingerprints and DNA evidence will tell enough of the story to lead to a criminal prosecution.
138  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Perhaps the most out-of-touch video ever on: September 13, 2014, 02:02:11 pm
The actor Patrick Stewart, who could have bought any car of his choosing,  shocked his Hollywood buddies by buying a Honda Accord. Excellent car, but not at all ostentatious.

One would think that successful people would have the wisdom to recognize the word luxury and its derivatives for the waste that the word implies. Do kids have to see everything before they are 20?

     
139  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: WSJ now openly calling for plutocratic oligarchy on: September 13, 2014, 01:54:30 pm
An entrenched monopoly is good for one boom one time and then consistent underperformance. 
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cuomo versus Bush on: September 13, 2014, 01:49:13 pm




Florida Governor Jeb Bush/New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte-250 EV
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo/Virginia Senator Tim Kaine-288 EV
[/quote]

Bare Cuomo win. Jeb has no magic to swing New Hampshire, and the VP choice doesn't matter that much. This is charitable on my part.
141  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why has there never been an Italian-American President? on: September 13, 2014, 10:34:17 am
It took 100+ years after Irish immigration began in force to elect an Irish-American President. Italian immigration peaked about 100 years ago and we've already had a few people who got into the outer circle: Geraldine Ferraro as VP nominee, Mario Cuomo as a likely frontrunner for the Dem nom who wouldn't commit, Rudy Giuliani as a flawed candidate. Michael Dukakis was not Italian but fits the same demographic box, which means that was one less opportunity for an Italian-American candidate. Given the limited opportunities, Italian-Americans have done well.

Mike Dukakis looked more like a Chicago gangster than like a stereotypical WASP politician. If I were in central casting and I saw a photo of Mike Dukakis as a possible cast member for a gangster film I would salivate at his image. Sure, he's not an Italian-American, but neither is Andy Garcia.

The real surprise when it comes to political talent is among Jewish Americans. Just look at the demographics.

We have yet to have a Polish-American or Scandinavian-American President. We barely got an Irish-American Catholic as President.
142  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rush Limbaugh 1993. on: September 13, 2014, 10:25:30 am
I'd prefer that ISIS did not exist, too.
143  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: WSJ now openly calling for plutocratic oligarchy on: September 13, 2014, 10:24:18 am
The ramblings of noted loon Peter Thiel that happened to be published in the WSJ do not == the WSJ.

But what about Rupert Murdoch?
144  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Perhaps the most out-of-touch video ever on: September 13, 2014, 10:23:39 am
If I were making $400K a year, I would not be spending so recklessly. Buying expensive cars and houses is no way to create wealth; such dissipates wealth. OK, if those are necessary for purposes of business, but otherwise -- your kids may need some help in attending a high-cost, first-rate university. Harvard ain't cheap, and if you want your kids to do as well, you had better have a profitable business to hand down or be able to get your kids to a school that can keep them in the upper-middle class.

$400K income is rarefied air in a country in which many are lucky to make $15K a year.
145  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: WSJ now openly calling for plutocratic oligarchy on: September 13, 2014, 10:12:57 am
Dumb article that attempts to create sympathy for monopolistic pricing power by foiling against the straw man of perfect competition. Perfect competition doesn't exist, and competition is the motivating factor that causes firms to seek price leverage.

It's just shock journalism.

We no longer have a predominantly-competitive economy. Cartels and trusts are the norm in the "new" America, and they own nearly half of the political system. Competition has become a command toward working people who are expected to compete to see who is most willing to suffer for economic elites. What we get from the non-competitive economy is suspect.

Although I can accept the idea of a monopolist operating in a naturally-constricted market (there might be room for only one business in the activity, and monopoly pricing is the only way for someone to participate in the local economy because a business owner must make a living -- there might be room for only one grocer, repair shop, or gas station in that market), I cannot accept it as an excuse for class privilege  except out of fear of consequences to my bodily integrity or personal freedom. (Basically, support plutocracy or go on trial for treason or meet a death squad with my name on its execration/execution list).

Monopolies get high profits by constricting supply -- creating shortages that allow high prices, prices above market. Monopolies raise costs upon all other businesses and reduce the ability of other businesses to compete in the world market.  Monopolistic pricing operates much like a tax upon those who need the monopolist's output as inputs. Thus, suppose that American steel costs $150 a ton in contrast to $40 on the world market. An American-built vehicle made in the United States has a built-in disadvantage of $110 per ton of steel. So if the steel business is non-competitive and the rail-car manufacturing business is competitive, American rail-car manufacturers will have a difficult time exporting.

Monopolists ordinarily give very poor service, even to the extent of an adversarial relationship with its customers.  By constraining supply they as a rule create unemployment.

The excuse that monopolies foster innovation is a sham. Monopolists do everything possible to ensure that they get no competition. They lavish funds on politicians who promise to enforce monopoly conditions.  Innovation by any other than themselves is a hazard to monopolists with captive markets.

 
146  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: September 13, 2014, 09:46:56 am
So what happened?

So far every state (since Pennsylvania)  in which one of the appellate courts has deemed SSM bans void has some elected official who has effective veto power over the ruling -- and has used it, at the least to delay SSM in the state.

Some appeals will go to the US Supreme Court, which has usually taken a harsh view of nullification and delay in accommodating rulings by appellate courts.   
147  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ted Cruz booed off stage at Middle Eastern Christian conference on: September 13, 2014, 08:40:44 am
Being "pro-Israel" (whatever that means) is starting to mean being pro-genocide.

That's basically it, sadly.  And the media along with most politicians are complicit in this.

That's how Sheldon Adelson promotes US-Israeli relations.

Permanent war with the Arab neighbors and near-neighbors of Israel is bad for Israel. Peace is the definitive achievement of national security.
148  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Molotov cocktail thrown into Rep. Cleaver's (D-MO) office on: September 11, 2014, 11:47:19 pm
I couldn't believe the comments in the link.

The BATF does a good job on connecting bombs to perpetrators. Fingerprints are hard to keep off a Molotov cocktail.   
149  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Eisenhower or McGovern? on: September 11, 2014, 11:17:03 pm
Where are all the people who voted Eisenhower?  Huh  Come on, don't be shy.  Seriously, nobody will yell at you.  Tongue

I'm one of them. I am a Democrat, and a very partisan one now.

Eisenhower was the right President for his time. His Interstate Highway System may have had its flaws, but it spurred economic growth where it was built and paid for itself with a reduction in highway carnage. He got us out of a stalemated war, and kept us out of others. He presided over shrunken deficits and surpluses. He let Joseph R. McCarthy implode. He showed some Southern pols what the law was on segregation. He avoided scandals.

He was so effective that his VP came close to succeeding him as President and probably would have had he not been so ugly. That's a reference to the appearance of Richard Nixon.

He proved himself with some amazing electoral successes. He won the two northern states (Massachusetts and Rhode Island) that went for Al Smith in 1928, and he won the two states that have been the exceptions to the two subsequent 49-state wipe-outs of 1972 (Massachusetts) and 1984 (Minnesota) -- twice. He put four Western states (Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming) into the GOP camp to the extent that only once has any one of them gone for the Democratic nominee after 1952.
150  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: MI: Glengariff Group: Snyder clings to lead on: September 11, 2014, 04:17:15 pm
The same poll has Peters up ten, which might be a little high for where it will probably end up.  If anything, Snyder might be up by even a little more than a point.  The fact that he might actually survive after passing right-to-work probably says more about the plight of unions in the country than it does about Michigan, but that would truly be one of the most striking wins of the year if Snyder pulls it off, especially if his Senate candidate gets demolished in an otherwise strong GOP year.  Amazing.

The unions will have a strong GOTV effort in place. They are loaded for bear.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 410


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines