Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 28, 2015, 01:14:39 pm
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 ... 430
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio vs Clinton on: January 23, 2015, 11:24:56 pm
Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.



Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Barack Obama stayed away from Indiana and Missouri because of Senate races that were worth more than the 21 electoral votes of those two states marginal in 2008.
He gave up 21 electoral votes... for no reason?

Are you daft?

He gave up on 21 electoral votes so that he would do nothing to hurt the chances of Democrats winning two Senate seats.  Someone challenging or running for an open Presidency usually tries to expand the map of possible wins until he has a reasonably sure thing. Trying to win re-election he was more intent on getting a surer win than a bigger win. He played "Beat the Cheat" in 2008 to make sure that there was no single state into which the Republicans could apply every effort to win on the assumption that that would be enough (Gore losing Florida and Kerry losing Ohio). In 2012 he played a nickel defense against the Republican Party. He let the Republicans make easy but meaningless gains on the map while using the calendar as his ally.

He was going to win without them; he was going to do nothing to hurt the chances of Democrats winning the Senate seats in question.  If he was going to win either Indiana or Missouri he was also going to win Ohio anyway, which would have been enough.

Remember: Barack Obama is one of the shrewdest campaigners ever in American history. He has to be, for obvious reasons. In 2016 the Democratic nominee will not have quite the same set of skills -- and detriments. How many votes do you think he lost because people couldn't imagine voting for a black man as President?
27  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: January 23, 2015, 11:10:37 pm
A federal judge...U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, ruled that Alabama's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, known as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, violates the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses.

"If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children," Granade writes. "Those children currently being raised by same-sex parents in Alabama are just as worthy of protection and recognition by the State as are the children being raised by opposite-sex parents. Yet Alabama’s Sanctity laws harms the children of same-sex couples for the same reasons that the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act harmed the children of same-sex couples.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/alabama-gay-marriage_n_6535610.html"
28  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: January 23, 2015, 05:09:25 pm
To be sure, this is "favorability" and not approval... but the two are obviously related:



http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCpoll01192014.pdf
29  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rubio vs Clinton on: January 23, 2015, 05:06:50 pm
Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.



Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Barack Obama stayed away from Indiana and Missouri because of Senate races that were worth more than the 21 electoral votes of those two states marginal in 2008.

(Really I think that Arizona is more likely to go for Hillary Clinton in 2016 than either Indiana or Missouri. Rubio is the wrong sort of Hispanic to win Arizona as a Republican). Nebraska's Second Congressional District? It voted out a Republican incumbent in the House in a wave election that went for the Republican Party.

This time Indiana and Missouri both have incumbent Republican Senators, one of whom might be vulnerable to defeat in the general election. Should either of those two be vulnerable and Hillary Clinton be have the near-lock that Obama had late in 2012, then you might expect Democrats to challenge them -- and Hillary Clinton will not avoid the state. Unlike President Obama she will not likely have the same political liabilities.   
30  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: OH-Sen: Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld likely running on: January 23, 2015, 04:56:49 pm
We need remember that Barack Obama was "only" an Illinois State Senator when he was elected to the US Senate. That was in a state similar in political size to Ohio.

31  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Senate seats in play in 2016 on: January 23, 2015, 04:51:34 pm
The 28% approval rating for Senator Toomey could conceivably be an outlier. But how much? If some other pollster comes up with even so much as "39%", then he is clearly in trouble.

He has a very right-wing voting record, and it will be used against him by any Democrat.
32  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Senate seats up for grabs -- for your convenience. on: January 23, 2015, 04:46:00 pm

The current map of US Senate seats up for grabs



Red -- Democratic incumbent
Blue - Republican incumbent

Independents are placed as they caucus.

A lighter shade involves an open seat due to a retiring incumbent.

An asterisk indicates an appointed incumbent. (We have none of those as of January 22, 2015).

To suggest how the map can change, imagine this unlikely scenario:

President Obama appoints Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) to a cabinet post (yeah, sure -- and weaken his Senate minority). The Republican Governor of Michigan Republican-dominated state legislature then appoints by its vote Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI) (also unlikely because such creates an open House seat in 2016 that the Republican Party may need, and Walberg is such a marginal politician that he could never be elected in a statewide race in Michigan) to the vacated seat. One of two things will happen to make a distinction on the map:

Either the newly-appointed US Senator Tim Walberg acts as if he wants to to run for re-election:



...or or commits to not do so:




I told you that this is a very unlikely scenario; it is only an illustration so that I can show an appointed seat and a Republican who intends not to run for re-election.

I suggest the first map for updates.
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA-PPP: Hillary up easily on: January 23, 2015, 11:33:30 am
Article.

Clinton -49%
Christie- 39%

Clinton- 49%
Bush- 38%

Clinton- 51%
Carson- 37%

Clinton- 51%
Huckabee- 39%

Clinton- 50%
Paul- 39%

Clinton- 50%
Romney- 40%

Clinton- 52%
Santorum- 36%


Romney- 43%
Biden- 41%

Romney- 44%
Warren- 36%

The Favorite Son effect does not work to a politician's advantage if he is seen unsympathetically.
34  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Taxing inheritance is "immoral." on: January 23, 2015, 08:26:01 am
Inheritance is the cornerstone of an aristocratic elite. It is most often the means of transferring power based upon family connections instead of merit.
35  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why all the Castro hype? on: January 23, 2015, 08:23:48 am
They're Hispanic and dems love playing identity politics.

In the event that Movement Conservatism collapses in Texas, they are the ones who can most quickly fill a political vacuum.
36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: January 22, 2015, 10:28:42 pm
I suspect that Chris Christie will be the one being dropped.

There was supposed to be a meeting between Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.
37  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: January 22, 2015, 10:07:05 pm
Quote
Last week, independent polling firm Zogby Analytics conducted a national survey for The Huffington Post examining how likely voters would respond if a GOP candidate signed a statement that he or she opposed same-sex marriage. Almost 35 percent said they would be somewhat or much less likely to vote for the candidate. Over 31 percent said they'd be somewhat or much more likely to support the candidate, and about 34 percent said it would make no difference or they weren't sure.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/gop-gay-marriage-2016_n_6525360.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA-PPP: Hillary up easily on: January 22, 2015, 04:43:27 pm
Clinton- 50%
Romney- 40%

Romney- 43%
Biden- 41%

Romney- 44%
Warren- 36%

If only we had someone to save us from the terrible and overrated Hillary.

It's just name recognition, IceSpear. Once people find out who Mitt Romney is, he'll beat Hillary.

Very funny.
39  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: January 22, 2015, 04:42:13 pm
Q, New Jersey. This supplants a post-election poll.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=2127

Clinton 52%
Christie 39%

Clinton 53%
Bush 37%

Clinton 54%
Paul 35%

Clinton 56%
Huckabee 33%

Clinton 53%
Romney 38%

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul



Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney



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
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: January 22, 2015, 04:36:36 pm
Using only polls following the 2014 election, and I add Mitt Romney with the expectation that someone will drop out of consideration.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul



Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney



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
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: January 22, 2015, 01:41:16 pm
Pennsylvania, PPP. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, then the road to a Republican Presidency is not the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Romney could win against Biden or Warren, though. 

Clinton -49%
Christie- 39%

Clinton- 49%
Bush- 38%

Clinton- 51%
Carson- 37%

Clinton- 51%
Huckabee- 39%

Clinton- 50%
Paul- 39%

Clinton- 50%
Romney- 40%

Clinton- 52%
Santorum- 36%

Romney- 43%
Biden- 41%

Romney- 44%
Warren- 36%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_122925.pdf

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

No change to the general projection, although these decisive leads would be a disaster for the GOP. Out of politeness at this stage I keep showing Ohio as a legitimate swing state.


[/quote]
42  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Boehner flirts with treason on: January 22, 2015, 01:08:47 am
John Boehner's outrageous plan to help a foreign leader undermine Obama

Obviously not treason, but bringing a foreign leader to the country to attack the sitting president is disgusting.

It's not even a good deal for Israel.

I can hardly see ISIS stopping at the borders of the "Zionist Entity"... and Israel could find itself with the same interest as Iran in stopping ISIS.
43  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Senate seats in play in 2016 on: January 21, 2015, 07:26:17 pm
With a 28% approval rating according to PPP, Pat Toomey (R-PA) is in obvious danger of losing his Senate seat.  He gets only 44% in matchups against non-politicians and comparative unknown candidates... and in view of the 28% approval he will have a difficult time going above 44%.
44  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Senate seats in play in 2016 on: January 21, 2015, 07:17:22 pm
Murkowski (R-AK) has gotten past one primary defeat to run as an independent -- once. It was tough... but she has done little for the moderates who voted her in. Begich could defeat a tea-bag nominee this time.

Ok.

Quote
Burr (R-NC)... maybe a one-and-out.

Richard Burr is running for a third term. He was first elected in 2004 and won re-election in 2010. Would you mean two-and-out?

I guess so.
45  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: PA-PPP: Toomey leads on: January 21, 2015, 07:08:20 pm
28% approval for an incumbent Governor or Senator is horrible. He can't crack 45% support against potential opponents still comparatively unknown.

From February 2010:

Quote
John Boozman will enter the Arkansas Senate race this weekend as the frontrunner. He leads incumbent Blanche Lincoln by an amazing 56-33 margin in our first poll of the race.

Lincoln's approval rating has sunk to just 27%, with 62% of voters in the state disapproving of her. She's at a middling 51% even within her own party and just 17% of independents and 9% of Republicans are happy with how she's doing.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2010/02/blanche-lincoln-poll.html


To be sure, having an approval rating at 28% twenty-two months before the election isn't quite as bad as having a 27% approval rating nine months before the election... but not even Barack Obama can campaign his way out of that level of disapproval.

I call it here: Republicans are going to cut their losses with Senator Toomey very fast. He's a bad fit for Pennsylvania, barely getting elected in the wave election of 2010, the sort who loses in a high-participation Presidential election.  They probably have a better chance of picking up an open Senate seat in California than they have of holding onto this one. 

I'm not calling a Democratic wave yet. 

Let's go over a few things.

First, Your philosophy is that an incumbent Senator needs 44% approval - two years before the election - to have a realistic chance of winning, correct? So, you assert that Toomey, who is at 28% approval, has only a 1% chance of victory, just like CA republicans. Would you also say, that Burr, who is only 3 points higher in approval, at 31%, only has a 1% chance of Victory? Would you also say that Bennet, who is at 30% approval, has that same 1% chance. Would you say that Isakson, at 39%, is a serious underdog? I doubt you would. Approval Ratings are not death sentences. Furthermore, Toomey's approval rating doesn't matter, because his opponents - those that will actually run, Rendell isn't going to - aren't any more well-known than he is, and don't have high favorability either. Sestak, the current likely nominee, is at 20% favorability - lower than Toomey. And yet you think the PA race is Safe D. How silly.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NC_12102014.pdf\ - burr approval
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/11/2016-senator-approvals.html - the others

You then assert that Toomey is the most vulnerable. He isn't. That title belongs to Johnson, who unlike Toomey, has not made any attempt at all to give out a moderate image. Toomey has made occasional glances toward bipartisanship and even joined with Manchin on a gun bill, Johnson hasn't done that at all. Also, likely candidate Russ Feingold is leading Johnson by 6 in the latest poll, as opposed to Sestak, who again, is trailing Toomey by 4 and can't even get 40 of the electorate to commit to voting for him.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_WI_423.pdf

You'll notice there that Johnson's favorability is higher than Toomey's, yet Johnson polls worse than Toomey. Approval ratings aren't clear cut pictures, and I agree, early polls aren't either. But I'll trust early polling over early approval ratings - which indicate for both Toomey and Johnson that that a sizable portion of the electorate doesn't have an opinion of them - leaving them plenty of room to grow.

I would also say that Kirk is more vulnerable than Toomey. Not only because Illinois is so democratic that a dog with a D next to its name would likely hit 40%, but also because several of the potential candidates against Kirk are great. Lisa Madigan is a popular attorney general. Cheri Bustos is a popular swing-district representative who just survived a republican tsunami, and Duckworth is a veteran (just like Kirk) who easily survived the republican wave, winning by essentially the same margin she did in the democratic wave of 2012.

We'll come back to this when the democratic % of the vote in CA is far higher than it is in PA, and maybe then you'll realize how terribly wrong you are.



Toomey is simply the first incumbent Senate Republican shown after the 2014 election -- and he is not doing well, to put it mildly. I have not seen post-election polls involving Illinois or Wisconsin yet; I see Kirk an Johnson likely to be in the same position as Toomey -- very poor fits for their states in which they are Senators. Show me post-2014 polls for Johnson and Kirk, and I may have a numerical (and even stronger) justification for saying that they go down to defeat, too.

Nate Silver applies the  44% threshold early in the electoral season.  Yes, someone with a 42% approval rating may have (let me guess) a 20% chance of winning re-election if much goes right -- excellent campaigning,  political events going favorably after being horrible, a weak opponent, and perhaps a huge infusion of support by 'independent' organizations flooding the media with last-minute smear campaigns. Being a Republican in a state that Republicans lose rarely or a Democrat in a state that Democrats rarely lose helps, too.

On the other side, having an approval rating of 47% (again I am guessing) might imply an 80% chance of winning. That is also a 20% chance of losing, so if one has ten incumbents, half of whom have approval ratings of 42% and half of whom have approval ratings of 47%, one of those with an approval rating of 42% will win and one of those with an approval rating of 47% will lose if results imitate the most likely result of random chance.  So if political events go badly, an incumbent becomes a weak campaigner, the challenger is unusually strong, and an opposing front group floods the media with a last-minute smear campaign... a 70% chance of winning can completely dissipate. 

Silver does not mention scandals. (I am going to guess that voters are the last to know. The politician is often secretive, which likely hurts his approval rating before his bad deeds are exposed). Journalists generally do not align themselves with politicians in trouble, so the tone of voice from a nearly-neutral broadcast journalist about Barack Obama can be very different from that for Rod Blagojevich.

With an approval rating of 28%, Toomey is clearly in deep trouble in any effort to get re-elected. He may not be in as spectacularly bad shape to lose a re-election bid as  Santorum was in 2006 (abuse of power within the Senate) or Corbett in 2014 (getting connected somehow to a horrible scandal of child abuse).  He needs to get his approval rating up to at least 40% to have a real chance at re-election. But that is going to be difficult. He will be vulnerable to negative ads about his positions. He can't run from his right-wing voting record.

We saw lots of incumbent Democrats up 44-41 or so early in 2014... and they still lost. They generally had low approval ratings, in part because they fit their states poorly.

A guess that the Republicans may have a better chance of winning an open seat in California is ... well, a guess on which non-zero probability is bigger. It's rare that I could call a Senate race against an incumbent this early. I just lack the imagination to see how Senator Toomey can be re-elected.
46  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: PA-PPP: Toomey leads on: January 21, 2015, 03:22:36 pm
28% approval for an incumbent Governor or Senator is horrible. He can't crack 45% support against potential opponents still comparatively unknown.

From February 2010:

Quote
John Boozman will enter the Arkansas Senate race this weekend as the frontrunner. He leads incumbent Blanche Lincoln by an amazing 56-33 margin in our first poll of the race.

Lincoln's approval rating has sunk to just 27%, with 62% of voters in the state disapproving of her. She's at a middling 51% even within her own party and just 17% of independents and 9% of Republicans are happy with how she's doing.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2010/02/blanche-lincoln-poll.html


To be sure, having an approval rating at 28% twenty-two months before the election isn't quite as bad as having a 27% approval rating nine months before the election... but not even Barack Obama can campaign his way out of that level of disapproval.

I call it here: Republicans are going to cut their losses with Senator Toomey very fast. He's a bad fit for Pennsylvania, barely getting elected in the wave election of 2010, the sort who loses in a high-participation Presidential election.  They probably have a better chance of picking up an open Senate seat in California than they have of holding onto this one. 

I'm not calling a Democratic wave yet. 
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: PA-Mercyhurst University: Hillary & Biden lead favorability ranking on: January 21, 2015, 03:00:38 pm
Considering how low the approval rating (PPP) is for Senator Toomey (28%), I just can't see the Koch fronts wasting money in Pennsylvania. 
48  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: PA-PPP: Toomey leads on: January 21, 2015, 07:57:39 am
Approval at 28% after four years in the US Senate -- he's almost certainly going down. The 2016 electorate will not be so favorable to Toomey as was 2010.

According to Nate Silver's famous study, an incumbent Governor or Senator needs 44% approval at the start of the campaign to have a reasonable chance of being re-elected in a binary election. He has a long way to go to shore up support to be able to campaign to victory. A politician wins while in campaign mode and can't govern or legislate in campaign mode.  So he is going to make some tough decisions that can't satisfy everyone who voted for him.

To be sure he has not abused power as Rick Santorum did as a Senator... and he hasn't committed himself to such a losing proposition as did former Governor Tom Corbett. But he doesn't have to lose 60-40 to lose a Senate seat.

In match-ups with comparative unknowns he gets no more than 44% even if he is ahead. This is ominous. Those unknowns can run against Pat Toomey's record of supporting absolute plutocracy.

Extremists might win one statewide election in Pennsylvania. One election -- and lose the next.

     

Lolpartisanhack

If anything it is the 28% approval rate that is laughable. Pennsylvania statewide politics are fairly easy to watch, and they have some clear patterns.

...I just gave you a tool for arguing that an incumbent Republican is in good shape. If at this stage he has an approval rating near 50% he is doing OK for now. I saw Santorum go down in 2006 and Corbett go down in 2014... from Michigan.  Santorum and Corbett were known commodities as their re-election campaigns went down. It's Nate Silver, and his model explains 2014 well. The Democratic incumbents who went down were shaky at best. So if you see someone like Ron Johnson (R-WI) with an approval rating of 47%... he's not in bad shape.

I spoke only about Toomey this time. Most politicians whose approval ratings are below 35% either choose not to run or lose a primary contest, so Nate Silver doesn't say much about him as a group.  In view of what you just said you need to refute Nate Silver and not my partisan rhetoric. Senator Toomey should be well known in Pennsylvania.  I can't see how Toomey campaigns his way out of his image as a Hard Right figure in a liberal-leaning state.

We're 2.5 months since that PPP poll that found Michael Bennet at 30/35. RIP Senator. I guess Burr, Rubio, and Isakson are as good as dead too. Some people are just unknowns. That's often a good thing.

I also love all the "define the opponent first" strategists. That's not exactly easy to do. They'll be trying to do the same thing. It worked with a guy like Corbett because he was defined so far out that opinions were so ingrained. If you try to define the opponent, you're going to end up with a Hagan/Tillis type race. Or perhaps Shaheen/Brown, I should also offer so you realize you shouldn't be so cocky.

Precisely. Define the incumbent as a crook, an extremist, or a failure and win. That's how Reagan defeated Carter, who was neither an extremist not a crook.

It may be early... but count on plenty of material on Burr from PPP. Everyone will be polling Florida.

So what does early polling on Toomey say about the chances of the Republican Party to hold the Senate? Only one seat. He's one case, as was Corbett last year; anyone who drew any inference on how the GOP would do nationwide from how Corbett was doing was a fool.

I am confident at this stage that if any Republican incumbent in the US Senate goes down, it will be Pat Toomey. He could be the only one who goes down based upon the polls since the 2014 electoral disaster for the Democratic Party.
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WaPo / ABC national poll: Clinton 56% Huckabee 39% on: January 21, 2015, 07:28:28 am
My guess on what a 57-43 election looks like with Clinton against Huckabee



Out on a limb? Sure. The strongest percentage for a Democratic nominee since 1964 was Barack Obama in 2008, so a 57-43 split of the popular vote for a Democrat is uncharted territory. Huckabee has a regional strength, but huge regional weaknesses.    

Yeah... this won't happen.

Huckabee has too many weaknesses for Republicans outside his core area of support to win the Republican nomination.

Some early polls suggest elections that will never happen -- like Obama vs. Palin in 2008.

I know this won't happen, but in any scenario, why would Huckabee lose Kansas, Nebraska, or the Dakotas...?

He is that poor a cultural match for the Plains states other than Oklahoma and Texas.

Sometimes, early polls show the results of an election that never happens... think of how bad things looked for an Obama-Palin matchup in early 2009. I don't know if I can get to the polling patterns from then, but I noticed that she could not relate to people who are not native speakers of English. To talk to such people, even if they are highly proficient in English, one is  wise to cleave closely to the formal register as do the phrasebooks and the formal teaching of English to non-native speakers.  I learned that quickly at a highly-regarded university in California. Sarah Palin did not.

Huckabee does well to the extent that Southern Baptists are a part of the electorate.     
50  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to Propose Capital Gains Tax Increase & Extending the Earned Income Credit on: January 21, 2015, 06:05:55 am
I really hope Obama's 2nd term isn't filled with "Look at this cool thing we could've had if you guys hadn't voted Republican"

I hope it is actually.

It's all about 2016 -- whether America is to be a democracy or a plutocratic oligarchy.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 430


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines