Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 03, 2015, 05:43:00 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 12 ... 117
151  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: FiveThirtyEight: Rubio first real candidate to enter, Cruz/Paul not serious on: April 14, 2015, 04:59:56 am
Paul can become serious, Cruz cannot.

I think it's the opposite. Paul has many problematic deviations from GOP orthodoxy. Cruz doesn't.

As for the 538 piece, it's pretty remarkable to have a Rubio piece and not mention immigration. Cruz's consistent opposition to amnesty gives him something to offer GOP primary voters that the two frontrunners don't. Also, Gingrich doesn't strike me as a relevant precedent for how Cruz would be stopped since Gingrich's electability or lack thereof had little to do with his demise.
152  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 12, 2015, 11:28:00 pm
Flimsy analysis? How did he find out about Atlas?

Yeah, it's pretty funny that this thread has devolved into the exact sort of flimsy analysis that Silver is railing against. Just completely unsupported assertions that a handful of cherrypicked data points have strong predictive power.

Has no-one ever considered that just maybe Nate Silver has done a tiny bit more research than you into what has predictive power in elections and what doesn't? And if the "zomg Dems have won the PV in 5/6 elections" had any significance, past election results would showcase it? (Hint: they don't. You don't have to be Nate Silver to work this out, have a look yourself by looking at election data and see if you can find any significant relationship between past performance and future results). 

Looking at past results to predict future one is about all of what Silver does.

Not sure why you don't think past results have predictive value. A growing majority of voters are very consistent in what party they vote for in presidential elections, more so than in decades past. Recent presidentials suggests more people are likely to vote Democratic than Republican and the GOP has a higher bar to clear as far as turnout and winning over the shrinking pool of undecideds.

I also think his analysis is off the mark when he seems to acknowledge Obama would have won even if he'd lost the pop vote by 1-2 points. That's significant since the only pop vote the GOP won in the past 25 years they won by 2.5 points. If he doesn't see Ds as having an advantage in the electoral college, he's clueless.

He's made his name in looking at polling averages and projecting what they say about which way a state will go. He's great at that, especially in the closing weeks of a campaign but that skill doesn't necessarily translate to analysis in something like this.
153  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 12, 2015, 06:54:23 pm
I don't see how it's a toss up when all the Democrats need are the Kerry states + VA, NM, NV.  

New Mexico and Nevada are practically freebies at this point.   That just leaves Virginia, which is probably one of the most obvious trending states in the country.    Even if the national vote shifts 3% toward the GOP from 2012, Virginia would still be winnable.  

It's just not a workable map for the Republicans.   They NEEEEEED a realignment.
There tend to be large swings in elections.

From 1972 to 1976, the party that won by 23 points lost by two. So a lot of states swing hard.

From 1976 to 1980, the party that won by two lost by 9.8, and that was reflected in the states. Ohio, which Ford narrowly lost by less than a percent, when to Reagan by ten points. North Carolina, which Ford lost by 11 points, went to Reagan by two.

1988 was a good presidential cycle for Republicans, but Bush lost a lot of ground from Reagan's reelection. Reagan won Wisconsin by nine points. Bush lost it by 3.62.

Bush loses Wisconsin by half a point in 2004. Obama wins it by nearly 14 points in 2008. Bush wins Indiana by 20 points in 2004. Obama wins it in 2008.

States that got by more than ten points to a party aren't guaranteed for that party in the next cycle.

Citing of the 70s and 80s doesn't persuade me there can be major swings in 2016, any more than citing baseball stats from 100 years ago would convince me home runs are rare and complete games common. We're in a different era with a much, much smaller % of the electorate have a low threshold for changing their presidential vote to a different party.

I suppose there was a big swing in 2008 with the election happening right after the biggest economic crisis in 80 years and if that happens again next year, I guess it could hurt the incumbent party. But the odds of that happening again don't feel like 50-50.
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Last time a VP cost a state? on: April 12, 2015, 04:04:51 pm
Can't recall any time a VP nominee won or lost a state. Might be zero cases in the last 50 years.
155  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Now that Hillary is inevitable... on: April 12, 2015, 03:45:05 pm
3rd Party. Strawberry Fields Forever.
156  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 12, 2015, 12:34:49 pm
Silver can be wrong about what probabilities are, and often is when not relying on stats. It can't be proven but it can be obvious, like it was when he gave Hillary close to 80% or something to be the nominee a couple months ago. Her being the nominee won't prove him wrong and wouldn't if he'd said she had a 10% chance. But it's also obviously wrong because of common sense.

Virginia has trended D. The GOP probably needs to win the pop vote by 1-2% to win enough swing states. That's what you call an electoral advantage for the Ds.

The GOP has only won the popular vote once in the past 6 presidential elections. Demo trends favor Ds. The gender gap favors Hillary with women making up a majority of voters.

The GOP regularly loses issues polling to Ds.
157  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 12, 2015, 10:47:16 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.
158  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What percentage will Hillary get of the white vote? on: April 12, 2015, 10:21:59 am
Bill Clinton got close to as many whites as his Republican opponents. And Hillary Clinton has unique appeal that he did not to a majority of white voters. People who think she'll only do as well as Obama with whites are hilarious.
159  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What percentage will Hillary get of the white vote? on: April 11, 2015, 09:52:26 pm
Definitely less than Bill's 44%.


Bill got high 40s of the D/R sum.
160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What percentage will Hillary get of the white vote? on: April 11, 2015, 08:56:48 pm
45
161  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Scott Walker = The next Mitt Romney? on: April 11, 2015, 10:11:04 am
They're dissimilar in major ways. Romney's religion made him an alien to the GOP primary electorate who nominated him anyway because they had no good options or else enough finally came around to tolerate Mormons. Walker's evangelical Christianity is instead an asset where most GOP primary voters are the same. Also, Walker is consciously selling an image of himself as a blue collar guy with the Kohl's schtick. Despite all that, as a Republican running for president, Walker is, like Romney did, trying to reverse himself on past stances that aren't conservative enough. Brendan Nyhan at the NYTimes on that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/upshot/how-scott-walker-has-escaped-the-inauthentic-label-so-far.html?src=recg&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

But it won't be long before Cruz and others attack Walker for flipping and we'll see if it lands.
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Scott Walker ready for prime time? on: April 10, 2015, 08:54:21 am
Republican politicians are supposed to seem dumb and mean.  Walker fits that perfectly.

Cruz strikes me more as the Darth Vadar character in this particular saga (with Newt being his role model). Walker is more like The Strawman in the Wizard of Oz.

The Strawman??? You may as well call Darth Vader Helmutman.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Scott Walker ready for prime time? on: April 10, 2015, 08:12:31 am
Walker seems like a dope and Cruz seems smart but Gingrich had to wait for the dumber Perry and Cain to self-destruct before he got his turn. But Cain's infidelity not his dumbness is what destroyed him. The GOP has a high tolerance for dumb and folksy, and to a large extent for flipping. That's in Walker's favor. Cruz  can't topple Walker alone. He'll need Bush and Walker to help him.

Also, sorry but I didn't hear it here first. And what's it going to take to persuade everyone here that Rand Paul has no chance at being the nominee?
164  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: PPP to poll NH this weekend; guess the results on: April 10, 2015, 06:11:22 am
I'll say Walker ahead of Bush by 1 or 2, Cruz in 3rd, Trump in 4th.
165  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, 06:07:41 am
Sure. Paul's positions, past and present, would never stand up to scrutiny, nor would he- he makes more gaffes than Biden. He's also sort of a paranoid lunatic and surrounds himself with others, though I can't blame him given his upbringing. And both parties' establishments would help beat him, in daylight or behind the scenes. He's especially a poor fit for Ohio, Florida and Virginia and would lose all 3. Even you would be supporting Hillary by next summer, though I expect that will happen regardless of who the GOP nominates.
166  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, 05:39:08 am
No need for handwringing. Paul has no real chance of winning the general election either so his having no chance to win the primary isn't some lost opportunity
167  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Upshot: GOP race looks Chaotic: It's Not. on: April 09, 2015, 07:45:05 am
Good article. Yeah, it is feeling fairly similar to 2008 with Bush as a parallel to Clinton and Walker as a parallel to Obama, an establishment candidate with populist appeal. Walker looks a bit shaky with a fair chance of a colossal gaffe which is why I'd put Cruz as the stand-by candidate instead of Rubio, who would need the much more unlikely scenario of Bush falling out with elites, as Cohn points out. Cruz, if he wins Iowa, feels different than Huckabee, who couldn't raise money and only evangelicals liked, and Gingrich, who had major vulnerabilities in his past.

Unlike many people here, I agree with Cohn that Paul has no chance whatsoever of being the nominee.
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: WI: Rand Paul is punking the GOP? on: April 08, 2015, 11:17:29 pm
It's likely enough that he'll never be given the chance.
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary's Gaffes on: April 08, 2015, 06:34:47 pm
Maybe everyone believes your confident prediction that she's not running.

Also, Paul probably makes more gaffes than any presidential candidate in a long time. Including Biden.
170  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Where will Walker stand on mass surveillance? on: April 08, 2015, 11:54:39 am
To borrow a phrase from Obama, you may want to bone up on Scott Walker before you go around posting on a 2016 board.
171  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PPP-National: Hillary leads GOP by 3-9 points on: April 07, 2015, 05:18:31 pm
I never thought Hillary was inevitable because of polls which are volatile. Romney led Obama a month before losing by 4, McCain led two months before losing by 7. Hillary will probably win somewhere in between those victory margins because America don't want what the GOP is selling.
172  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: John Kerry for HRC's running mate? on: April 07, 2015, 05:14:12 pm
1.John Kerry would only be 63 in 2016, he likely just seems older because he's been in politics for so long.

He seems older because of his birth certificate. He'll be 73.

Quote
2.HRC choosing Kerry would be the same 'doubling down' like Bill Clinton did with choosing Al Gore in 1992.  It would emphasize experience and foreign policy expertise in a 'dangerous world.'

Yeah but we need a Secretary of State until 2017. As fun as it would be to nominate Rice and bait the GOP into another Benghazi hearing, it won't happen.
173  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Pew polls "% chance you would vote for [NAME]" on: April 07, 2015, 04:04:35 pm
42% of Republicans have never heard of the Republican leading or tied in most national polls right now! That's even more than the % of Republicans who would not consider voting for Christie, though just barely.
174  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Obama meddling in primary? Attacks Walker on FP. on: April 07, 2015, 03:58:16 pm
Obama knows he's helping Walker and I'd guess prefers Hillary face him over Bush but I doubt his motive was trying to affect the primary as opposed to, like the State of the Union ad-libbed "I won them both" line, he just felt like giving it back to Walker and since it helped Walker, he felt free to do it.
175  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PPP-National: Hillary leads GOP by 3-9 points on: April 07, 2015, 02:00:23 pm
But muh ABC poll! But muh 20 point landslide

Whether the newest poll shows her with a 20 point lead or tied, I am as sure that she will ultimately win as I am that your contribution to the analysis will include the "word" "muh".

Uh-oh, that means Hillary is in trouble Wink

If offered a deal of President Cruz but I never have to read "muh" again, I would take it in a heartbeat. It is that terrible a word.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 117


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines