Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2015, 06:37:18 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 ... 450
26  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: April 16, 2015, 09:54:49 am
Germane because there could be a Senate seat opening in New Jersey:

Quote
New Jersey voters give Menendez a negative 35 - 46 percent job approval rating, down from a positive 46 - 33 percent approval rating in a January 21 Quinnipiac University poll and the senator's worst net approval rating ever.

Disapproval is 56 - 29 percent among Republicans and 51 - 30 percent among independent voters, while Democrats approve 44 - 37 percent.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=2187

...Other Democrats and Democratic-friendly agendas are doing fine in New Jersey. President Obama now has approval in the 50s -- up from the mid-40s. Where Senator Menendez disagrees with President Obama (Iran and Cuba), President Obama is on the more popular side.
27  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Approval of incumbent US Senators up for re-election on: April 15, 2015, 06:39:35 pm
Bennet (D-CO), the Q:

Quote
Colorado voters approve 46 - 29 percent of the job Bennet is doing and give him a 40 - 27 percent favorability rating. Michael Coffman gets a 30 - 23 percent favorability rating, with 47 percent who haven't heard enough about him to form an opinion.


Grassley, (R-IA), the Q:

Quote
Iowa voters approve 67 - 21 percent of the job U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley is doing and say 53 - 34 percent he deserves reelection. U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst gets a 48 - 27 percent approval rating.

Current D Senators from Virginia not up for re-election in 2016, the Q:


Quote
Voters approve 57 - 28 percent of the job U.S. Sen. Mark Warner is doing and give Tim Kaine a 49 - 32 percent approval rating.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2186





28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: CA: Hillary leads by 6% only on: April 15, 2015, 06:27:00 pm
It's hard to see what Republican candidate can poach any significant part of the Obama vote in California of 2008 and 2012. The Hispanic wife of Jeb Bush can't do it, and Ted Cruz is the wrong sort of Hispanic for California,

Until the Republican nominee fully repudiates the bad economics and anti-intellectualism of Republicans in the 21st century, California is a Democratic lock for the Presidency.
29  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Predict the (hypothetical) %-results of Hillary vs. GOPers in your state/country on: April 14, 2015, 10:33:24 pm
Some of your projects are pretty good. I could see 51-47 for Hillary.

Anyone thinking that Hillary will win nationally by 10 is a partisan hack. No one has won by that much since 1984. She wont even get GWH Bush's 54%.


In my state it will be
Any GOPer 52%
Hillary 46%

There are potential Republican nominees who are so bad that they would lose like Goldwater because the Democrats can cast them as dangerous extremists or as complete incompetents. Some blowouts (Obama vs. Palin would have been one) never happen. 
30  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: CA: Hillary leads by 6% only on: April 14, 2015, 12:38:58 pm
The CBS affiliate in San Diego has repeated the poll:

http://www.cbs8.com/story/28796548/emerson-college-poll-california-may-be-in-play-for-2016-presidential-race-harris-leads-in-us-senate-race-71-support-water-use-restrictions

Quote
Hillary Clinton holds a commanding 46-point lead over Senator Elizabeth Warren, her nearest potential rival for the Democratic nomination. However, in head-to-head matchups with the top two GOP contenders, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, Clinton's 53% to 47% edge is within the poll's margin of error of +/- 3.2%. 

Somebody does not even understand polling statistics.
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: April 14, 2015, 12:36:02 pm
California, Emerson College.

Likely a junk poll, but we don't see much from California. The interpretation is even worse. It comes through the San Diego CBS station with no warranty:

Quote
Hillary Clinton holds a commanding 46-point lead over Senator Elizabeth Warren, her nearest potential rival for the Democratic nomination. However, in head-to-head matchups with the top two GOP contenders, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, Clinton's 53% to 47% edge is within the poll's margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/28796548/emerson-college-poll-california-may-be-in-play-for-2016-presidential-race-harris-leads-in-us-senate-race-71-support-water-use-restrictions

We don't see many polls of California, but for now this is what we have.  California media will pay attention to at the least the Senate race.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



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
32  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: CA: Hillary leads by 6% only on: April 14, 2015, 08:57:22 am
That sounds like a "Loof-Lipra" poll. Just read it backward.
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will Hillary do in the chicago suburb counties like dupage? on: April 14, 2015, 02:14:15 am
The trend of aging suburbs going D will continue.
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Predict the (hypothetical) %-results of Hillary vs. GOPers in your state/country on: April 14, 2015, 02:12:59 am
Michigan:

Clinton 57 - Bush 42
Clinton 58 - Walker 41

United States:

Clinton 53 - Bush 46
Clinton 55 - Walker 44
 
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Rasmussen: Hillary leads Cruz by 9, Paul by 10 on: April 13, 2015, 03:28:08 pm
Wow! This is inconsistent with polls that have shown Rand Paul coming close to Hillary Clinton.

I have no means of determining whether Rasmussen polls are now reliable... PPP displays results of a weekend poll of New Hampshire either tomorrow or Wednesday.

I see Ted Cruz as the potential "Barry Goldwater of 1964" against Hillary Clinton as I see nobody else.   
36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nate Silver: 2016 is a tossup; most conventional wisdom analysis is flimsy on: April 13, 2015, 09:21:18 am
He's wrong. go look at Jonathan Chait's column from today.

Obama will be the 5th term limited president but the parties have diverged ideologically; there are much fewer swing voters today than 15 let alone 55 years ago. Also, Silver should know better than to consider midterm electorates as relevant for whether or not there's a Democratic majority in presidential elections. In the latter, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and the demographic make-up of presidential electorates has been trending more Democratic still. He also dismisses the D electoral college advantage by arguing there is no "firewall".  Silver is smarter than that. Republicans can win but they have to sweep the swing states to do so. Democrats only need to stop a GOP sweep.

He's right that the economy is unpredictable and that Bush or Walker won't change the race much but calling it a toss-up is arbitrary. Silver is better at analyzing polls a month before election day than predicting with hunches (like when he gave Hillary only an 80% chance to be the nominee 2 months ago or whatever).

As I said 2 years ago, Hillary has the easiest path of any non-incumbent in modern times. I'd say she's close to 70% to be the next president, incredibly high for someone on the day they announce.

Nate Silver hasn't been wrong yet.


Making detailed predictions based upon a fluid reality is reckless. One might as well cast natal horoscopes to decide that the stars and planets work out best for some obscure politician in West Dakota. But some realities are rigid.

Quote
There is no firewall, it is a myth. What there is a that PA, MI, WI, IA, NH, MN have a slight D+ PVI ranging from IA at 0 to MN at +4. Where the GOP struggles in the PV not the EV. If the GOP candidate ever got 52% of the PV, all those state except MN would fall and MN would be a Dem win of about 1%.

In the last twenty years (six Presidential elections), Republican nominees for President have won Iowa and New Hampshire only once and none of the other states. Ronald Reagan won big in the transitional years between the South being heavily Democratic and the Midwest and Far West being largely Republican to the time in which the Midwest and West had become heavily Democratic and the South had become increasingly Republican. Such is a long-term trend that nobody seems to be breaking yet.

Can a Republican nominee win? Sure -- if he can make convincing promises to solve most economic distress with plutocratic oligarchy (because such is the Republican mainstream) or succeed at intimidating people of the sort who haven't voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1992 to vote Republican "if you care about having a job next month and food on the table for your kids".  Sure -- if there is another economic meltdown that looks as ominous as those beginning in 1929 or 2007.  Sure -- if there is a diplomatic disaster analogous to the Iranian hostage crisis or a military calamity. Sure -- if all of a sudden we have a right-wing religious revival that convinces a new batch of voters to have faith in biblical literalism, plutocracy, and American military strength because the only happiness that matters is in Heaven and delights in this world are suspect.  Sure -- if we start to experience a nasty wave of inflation with stagnant pay.   

Quote
Nate uses statistics, you use your feelings. 70% is based on what modeling??? Show me how the number was calculated. Take about rejecting science.

There is much that we don't know. I see little evidence that the same sorts of people who voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama aren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton. I see no evidence so far of the reduction of political polarization. Quality of politicians seems not to matter; turnout matters far more. Change in voting patterns for President implies that the disparate Parties are successfully poaching what used to be shaky or even reliable voters for the Other Side. I see no reason to believe that.   

It is reasonable to assume that the next election begins as a 50-50 proposition in electoral and popular vote. But eventually the polls show something. 
37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Well, your opinion of Hillary's video? on: April 12, 2015, 07:08:07 pm
The main message was that she thinks that the system is "stacked in favor of those at the top" which is the main area in which work is yet to be done. Interesting. Does this mean inequality will be a campaign focus? If so, it's tacking to the left a bit, I think.

The economy works for us all... or it does not work.

If you want to see how well an economic order creates prosperity that does people real good -- don't look for the castles, mansions, and palaces. Don't look for show projects. Look instead at how people like barbers and teachers live.
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Of all 2016 candidates - Who does the media hate the most? on: April 12, 2015, 03:06:18 pm
The Right-wing media (including of course FoX Propaganda Channel) already hate Hillary Clinton on ideological grounds alone. Other media are not so decided on which Republican they most despise.
39  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas approves textbooks with Moses as Founding Father on: April 10, 2015, 07:47:39 pm
One of the ironies is that the prohibition of covetousness all but precludes both the work ethic and capitalism that create wealth.

I interpret "Thou shalt not steal" to imply "thou shalt not exploit".
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Huckabee does best against Hillary on: April 10, 2015, 02:53:12 pm
NC isn't worth pursuing for Democrats

There is a Senate seat up for grabs. Burr has a lousy approval rating.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: April 10, 2015, 02:51:52 pm
We may be missing this. Any intelligent discussion of the 2016 Presidential election begins with this undeniable reality. Assuming that there will be no blowout victory for anyone (which would make for a numbing discussion)...


A composite of Presidential elections, 1992-2012:




Deep red -- Democrats win every Presidential race.
Medium red -- Democrats win all but one Presidential race.
White -- always went with the winner
Pale blue -- went for the winner in all election, but in that exception went for the Republican
Yellow -- twice Democratic, but seeming to now drift Democratic
Green -- twice Democratic but seeming to drift Republican (Missouri in a light shade because Obama was close in 2008, others deep green)
Medium blue -- Republicans win all but one Presidential race.
Deep blue --Republicans win every Presidential race.

NE-02 is the middle box in Nebraska even if the district is Greater Omaha.

... Any information from before 1992 is irrelevant to current reality because the electoral results of 1980, 1984, and 1988 were blowouts and 1976 was so strangely different from any electoral map in the 1992 or later.  Anyone who predicts that a state in deep (or even medium) red or deep (or even medium)  blue is going to vote differently from how it has voted in the last six elections has some explaining to do. (Counter-intuitive reality exists, but it usually shows its truthfulness in ways that make it undeniable -- like West Virginia going to Bush in a close election in 2000 or  Virginia going for Obama in what long looked like a close election in 2008.   How California or Texas voted in 1976 or earlier no longer matters.  States in pale shades or white can be understood as swing states in anything near a 50-50 election.

No state is in pink, so 'reasonable swing states' according to state voting patterns of the last twenty years suggest that   

CO FL MO NV OH VA   

are the real swing states.

If you see something out of recent norms happening in Arizona or Iowa, then you can add those. I would be tempted to replace MO with NC based on 2012 based on performance in 2008 and 2012 -- but that is a quibble in a rigid system.  You might make an argument that some Democrat is a better match for states in green or that Virginia has gone Democratic twice only because of Obama and will not do so again. You can argue such and still be wrong, but you might have a reason. Polls will prove your contention or disprove it.

But if you say something like "Kansas must be getting sick of Republican pols", "the fast-growing Hispanic population dooms the Republicans in Arizona", "economic distress in the Rust Belt will cause blue-collar workers to abandon the Union Bosses for free-market solutions", or "Scott Walker is sure to win Wisconsin as a favorite son"  you have some explaining to do and a need for evidence to support your position. Polls will be adequate. 
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: my electoral map of April on: April 10, 2015, 02:31:25 pm
5. A Republican wins the Presidency in 2016 in the event of one of the following:

a. an economic meltdown that makes people desperate for any change
b. a catastrophic war solely linked to Democrats
c. a diplomatic catastrophe
d. a right-wing religious revival that changes the political culture of some currently-reliable Democratic states
e. exposure of a personal scandals of the Clinton family

All are theoretically possible, but time is running out on those.           

There are 577 days until the general election...

Every day seems one day closer to what now looks inevitable.

Even Karl Rove, one of the harshest critics of President Obama, recognizes President Obama as "cautious". Caution is one way to avoid trouble.   

43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: April 10, 2015, 02:19:31 pm
PPP, North Carolina. We are going to know every gust of the political winds in North Carolina from now until November 2016. This weekend, PPP polls New Hampshire.   

Huckabee: 48%
Clinton: 43%

Walker: 46%
Clinton: 43%

Cruz: 45%
Clinton: 45%

Paul: 45%
Clinton: 45%

Bush: 44%
Clinton: 45%


Christie: 41%
Clinton: 43%


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_41015.pdf

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie

 

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul



Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker



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
44  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Michelle Obama to seek Congressional seat in 2016 on: April 10, 2015, 08:21:50 am
This thread needs to be closed like other April Fools joke threads (including some of mine).

You remember those --

Harold Stassen for President (who says that a dead man can't run for President and get elected?)
polls from the defunct Strategic Vision and from "Loof-Lipra" (read it backward)
"Senator Kirk will need phasers to fend off the assault of Hillary Klingon"
45  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: PA-Quinnipiac: Toomey way ahead on: April 10, 2015, 08:16:47 am
Pat Toomey can be hit on his environmental record, foreign policy, and labor policy. He barely got elected in a wave election, and 2016 will not be a wave election favoring Republicans.
46  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: April 10, 2015, 08:12:39 am
States (and  DC) not polled include:

California  55
Delaware 3
District of Columbia 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 20
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
New Mexico 5
Oregon 8
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Washington 10

That's 157 electoral votes there, and I have yet to see anyone telling me how Republicans can expect to pick up any of them. None of them offered much mystery on how they would go in 2008 or 2012. The only way in which the climate of the Presidential race of 2016 could be different from that of 2012 is that racial animus is unlikely to play a factor in 2016. That would hurt the Republicans in states that could vote for Bill Clinton but not Hillary Clinton. 



47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: CO/IA/VA-Quinnipiac: Hillary quite weak, as Paul runs best against her on: April 10, 2015, 07:59:22 am
Historical precedent shows how hard it is for a Democrat president to be elected in an open election after 8 years of a prior Democrat president. Hillary has to overcome this. On top of that, Obama fatigue will be intense by 2016. Hillary has to overcome this. Additionally, Hillary brings her own truck full of baggage to the race, and she has to overcome that. She also will be 69, but looks more like 79, and has the appearance of someone you might be more apt to find slumped over in a wheelchair in the hallway of a nursing home than someone running for president. She has to overcome this too.

Yes, Obama's noted HORRIBLE 45-50 approval rating. Can you see with your crystal ball that it's going to get much worse? Roll Eyes You realize McCain got 46% even when Bush was at 25% approval, correct?

As for the attacks on age and appearance...well, I can only hope the GOP uses that strategy.

The 'horrible' 45-50 approval rating is good enough to allow him to be re-elected if he could run for a Third Term and sought it. Plenty of Republican Senators have approval ratings in the 30s now and seem to have good chances of re-election.

As for appearance -- Ronald Reagan was in worse mental shape in 1980, and nobody but insiders knew that.
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: my electoral map of April on: April 10, 2015, 07:53:30 am
Historical precedent shows how hard it is for a Democrat president to be elected in an open election after 8 years of a prior Democrat president. Hillary has to overcome this. On top of that, Obama fatigue will be intense by 2016. Hillary has to overcome this. Additionally, Hillary brings her own truck full of baggage to the race, and she has to overcome that. She also will be 69, but looks more like 79, and has the appearance of someone you might be more apt to find slumped over in a wheelchair in the hallway of a nursing home than someone running for president. She has to overcome this too.

1. Republicans have frustrated this President at every turn, and it may be that President Obama's agenda is still popular. People may want it to be completed in 2016, and that would hurt Republicans.

2. The current Republican Party is not the benign conservative alternative to liberalism. Its All for the Few economics is clear to anyone, and it now has an ugly streak of militarism. It has people calling for aggressive war as a solution for counteracting the 'weak' foreign policy of Barack Obama. This is not Eisenhower-era Republicanism of main street rural America; this is a right-wing party with a firm ideology that excoriates the intellect and praises brute force.

3. Hillary Clinton will be no older than Ronald Reagan. If the stuff about her health is true (and it comes from suspect sources) then she had better have a good understudy as VP. I see her as a one-term President  for reasons of age alone.

4. Historical precedent? FDR got re-elected in a landslide in 1940 and won by slightly more in the popular vote as did Obama in 2008. Truman was re-elected in 1948 despite secession of segregationists who endorsed the New Deal but not improved lives for blacks.

5. A Republican wins the Presidency in 2016 in the event of one of the following:

a. an economic meltdown that makes people desperate for any change
b. a catastrophic war solely linked to Democrats
c. a diplomatic catastrophe
d. a right-wing religious revival that changes the political culture of some currently-reliable Democratic states
e. exposure of a personal scandals of the Clinton family

All are theoretically possible, but time is running out on those.           
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: my electoral map of April on: April 09, 2015, 05:25:06 pm
1992-2012



Deep red -- Democrats win every Presidential race.
Medium red -- Democrats win all but one Presidential race.
White -- always went with the winner
Pale blue -- went for the winner in all election, but in that exception went for the Republican
Medium blue -- Republicans win all but one Presidential race.
Yellow -- twice Democratic, but seeming to now drift Democratic
Green -- twice Democratic but seeming to drift Republican (Missouri in a light shade because Obama was close in 2008, others deep green)
Deep blue --Republicans win every Presidential race.

... This is where we reasonably start. Any information from before 1992 is irrelevant to current reality.  Anyone who predicts that a state in deep (or even medium) red or deep (or even medium)  blue is going to vote differently from how it has voted in the last six elections has some explaining to do. How California or Texas voted in 1976 or earlier no longer matters.  States in pale shades or white can be understood as swing states in anything near a 50-50 election.

No state is in pink, so 'reasonable swing states' according to state voting patterns of the last twenty years suggest that   

CO FL MO NV OH VA  

are the real swing states.

If you see something out of recent norms happening in Arizona or Iowa, then you can add those. I would be tempted to replace MO with NC based on 2012. You might make an argument that some Democrat is a better match for states in green or that Virginia has gone Democratic twice only because of Obama and will not do so again. You can argue such and still be wrong, but you might have a reason.

But if you say something like "Kansas must be getting sick of Republican pols", "the fast-growing Hispanic population dooms the Republicans in Arizona", "economic distress in the Rust Belt will cause blue-collar workers to abandon the Union Bosses for free-market solutions", or "Scott Walker is sure to win Wisconsin as a favorite son"  you have some explaining to do and a need for evidence to support your position. Polls will be adequate. 

    
50  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: my electoral map of April on: April 09, 2015, 03:04:15 pm
One can't predict campaign collapses. One can't predict money bombs unless one is an insider. 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 450


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines