Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 29, 2014, 04:53:58 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 12 ... 109
151  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Who will win the 2014 FIFA World Cup? on: July 01, 2014, 08:34:47 pm
Aside from Costa Rica, any match of the remaining 7 looks fairly even. Following that logic, that means the Netherlands is the best bet to win, followed by Argentina and Belgium. But since I'm an illogical person, I'll vote for Costa Rica to win. Also don't want to knock Colombia from the lead of this poll.
152  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - July 2014 on: July 01, 2014, 08:22:50 am
PPP tweeted this yesterday.

Quote
60% of Republicans in Louisiana who say they support Jeb Bush for 2016 nomination also say they oppose Common Core

If Bush runs, his rivals will make sure they find out he's the biggest proponent of Common Core. There are only a few Republican candidates with few vulnerabilities in a primary: Cruz, Jindal, Walker and Pence. Cruz and Jindal look more likely to run than Pence or Walker (given the uncertainty of what happens in Walker's re-election and the investigation of the recall race). Between Cruz and Jindal, Cruz has shown much more political talent than Jindal. So he's the likeliest nominee for now.
153  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NYT: How Hillary Clinton Is Like John McCain on: July 01, 2014, 06:34:12 am
If Hillary loses by five, it's possible that a Martin O'Malley could lose by twelve.

If Hillary ekes out a narrow win, it might be an environment that would crush a Klobuchar.

Here's an argument from Jonathan Bernstein (always pretty sharp) that nominees don't affect elections that much and so Cruz could beat Hillary.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/20/ted_cruz_could_beat_hillary/

Quote
The bottom line is that candidates just don’t matter all that much in presidential elections. Yes, a reputation for ideological extremism hurts, but it appears to hurt maybe 2 or 3 percentage points.

And of course Klobuchar is nothing like Cruz. I think she'd be one of the Ds strongest potential nominees.
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Will 2016 have more "swing" states than 2012? on: June 30, 2014, 02:45:05 pm
Defining 'swing/battleground' as any state that receives significant attention from both candidates. In 2012, there were 10 states fitting such description: OH, VA, FL, PA, NH, IA, CO, WI, NV, NC

In 2016, there are different swing/battleground states depending on the matchup, but the number is generally greater than 10, so yes, there will likely be more battlegrounds than there were in 2012. A few examples:

Clinton/Christie - MT, NV, AZ, CO, MN, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NJ, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (16 states)
Clinton/Walker - MT, AZ, CO, WI, IA, AR, OH, PA, NH, VA, NC, GA, FL (13 states
Biden/Bush - All 2012 plus OR (11 states)
Biden/Santorum - AZ, CO, MT, IA, OH, PA, VA, NC, GA, FL (10 states)

I want to restate the definition of "swing state".

Swing state is a state that can swing the election. For example, North Carolina was NOT a swing state in 2008 or 2012 because Obama would have already won the election if the won North Carolina.

Using that definition, there were no swing states in any of the 4 elections won by Clinton and Obama. And I bet there won't be any in 2016 either.
155  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Stronger Dem GE Candidate Clinton or Gillibrand? on: June 28, 2014, 04:42:11 pm
Actually, if Ds hold the senate in 14 or the vote happens after the new senate is sworn in in 2017 (not sure which senate would vote), Hillary could safely pick Gillibrand (or Cuomo) as a running mate without changing her primary residence. Even if the election were close enough that Gillibrand or Cuomo fell short of a majority without NY, the senate would elect Gillibrand. But I tend to doubt she will do that.
156  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Hillary getting overexposed? on: June 28, 2014, 01:18:56 pm
I think she can go another year before announcing.
157  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Stronger Dem GE Candidate Clinton or Gillibrand? on: June 28, 2014, 10:09:28 am
Seniors are her worst group in every poll.

I wasn't clear. Any Democratic nominee will poll weaker with seniors and Southerners than nons. I meant to say Hillary is far less weak in those groups than other Democrats are.

On second thought, I think she often or usually does worse with the middle aged than with seniors.
158  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Stronger Dem GE Candidate Clinton or Gillibrand? on: June 28, 2014, 08:40:18 am
The country's fondness for the Clinton years, especially in the South and among seniors, gives Hillary an advantage no other Democrat has. She also has weaknesses most other Democrats don't: being ridiculously rich and corporate ties. Despite the stir over Hillary's clumsiness in answering questions about her money, it's a good bet she'll get the hang of it. (She already looks like she's learning from her mistakes.) The bigger weakness is her corporate coziness but Gillibrand isn't exactly the antidote on that. Taken all together, I think Hillary would be a lot stronger in the general. I'm assuming Gillibrand is going to be one of Hillary's most visible surrogates by the way.
159  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Fix Pub rankings: Bush, Rubio, Paul on: June 27, 2014, 05:21:46 pm
They say the candidate they rank#1 is < 50/50 to even run. I guess that's the story of GOP 2016 but even so, hard to take the list seriously. They also, in explaining why Cruz isn't higher, call McDaniel's loss inexplicable, even though it's not a mystery at all and doesn't seem particularly relevant for a Cruz run.
160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Stronger Dem GE Candidate Clinton or Gillibrand? on: June 27, 2014, 04:39:53 pm
Can we please have both? I'd love to vote for a Clinton/Gillibrand ticket.
You'd have to give up New York's Electoral Votes (and the election) if you have them both, so by all means, please do Wink.

I think the rule is the NY electors couldn't vote for both Clinton and Gillibrand, meaning Clinton would still win but conceivably without Gillibrand if the election were close enough that NY made the difference. (It didn't in 2008 or 2012). But it's academic. If this ticket were to happen, Clinton would run as a DC resident a la the Bush-Cheney 2000 move.



161  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How the Clintons went from "dead broke" to rich (WaPo) on: June 27, 2014, 12:01:14 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/27/what-bills-speaking-fees-say-about-a-hillary-presidency/

That's a good question responding to the original story.

I believe all the negative attention Hillary's comments have generated has finally disproved the myth of the liberal media.

It disproves the myth that the media holds any particular ideological standpoint apart from enhancing the media's profits. If it benefits particular segments of the media to pander to a particular ideology as a way to increase their revenues then they will do so.

That's true, but also guys like Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are also true believers. FOX ignored Bridgegate the day of the big break, sacrificing ratings- or clickbait in the service of their larger agenda. Whether it's for profit or politics, the sum of it seems to be more conservative-skewing sources than not. Bad polls for Obama, Obamacare troubles, a potential scandal for Obama get far more overall media coverage than polls showing him rebound, news about Obamacare succeeding or revelations that undercut the narrative of a scandal.

As far as Hillary Clinton, whether the manipulation was because someone had it in for her or wanted clicks I don't know but the headline that she claimed not to be truly well-off was pretty egregiously dishonest; her point in the quote reads that she is truly well-off, just pays a normal tax rate unlike others who do not.

EDIT: I do think Diane Sawyer's original question that Hillary botched was a good one. If the 2008 primary had not been as close as it was, Hillary wouldn't be the presumptive nominee now. Even if she'd still been Secretary of State.
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary should have female opponents in the Democratic Primary on: June 26, 2014, 07:19:28 pm
Quote
Except that this is a presidential election, not a trust fall. And the sisterly deference being shown to Clinton by her colleagues—while intended as a sign of respect—is doing far more harm than good.

It's not about sisterly deference. It's Clinton's dominance in polling and relationships with big donors scaring them off. That's probably the biggest reason even in the case of Gillibrand who reveres Hillary. She won't run against her. Warren might but she doesn't seem like she really wants to.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would be a better General Election Candidate? on: June 26, 2014, 05:58:00 pm
People exaggerate Warren's weakness in a general election. If Feingold can win in Wisconsin and Brown in Ohio, Warren can win nationally. Not to mention Obama in 2008. Warren would probably hold up well in a campaign; the American electorate is more liberal than they realize.

Also, Clinton will have a slew of problems in a general election that Warren would not. That said, Clinton is the best positioned non-incumbent 2 and a half years out we've ever seen.

And  I thought that before Mosul fell, rape tape and dead broke. I still think it's more likely Warren passes than runs, and she'd be a big underdog to Hillary (even if the only one who could make the primary competitive). But I still reject the Atlas Wisdom that Hillary is a stronger general election candidate than Warren.
164  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: FIFA 2014 World Cup - Official Discussion Thread on: June 26, 2014, 05:28:56 pm
Not that implausible if USA's path to the final ended up being Belgium-Switzerland-Mexico, all winnable. At which point all we have to do is get past Algeria. Alright maybe not that. But with the way Messi has been saving Argentina, it's as easy to imagine them winning it all as it is losing to Switzerland.
165  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you #Ready4Hillary on: June 25, 2014, 10:18:38 am
I'm ready for all the coronation hype to die once she declines.

If you had asked me in 2012, I would have insisted she wouldn't run. It just didn't seem as likely then? I can't exactly explain what changed, but now, I think it's pretty obvious she's running.

What changed is that in 2012 she was consistently denying that she would run, and now she isn't.


I thought that was earlier in Obama's term. Even then there was no reason to take the denials at face value because she going to deny it even if she were running. Also, her denials were often non-denial denials. Think it's been clear since at least 2011 she'd run.

This is what she was saying as late as October 2012:

October 2012

http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/inspirational-women/hillary-clinton-farewell-4

Quote
Clinton, however, was emphatic when I asked if she was planning to run in 2016. Laughing, she said, "You know? I am not."

"Why not?" I asked. "Everybody wants you to."

Her answer, when it came, felt honest, though it was hardly different from the answer given by numerous other politicians in the same position, all of whom have insisted they wouldn't run up until the moment they changed their minds. "I have been on this high wire of national and international politics and leadership for 20 years," Clinton said. "It has been an absolutely extraordinary personal honor and experience. But I really want to just have my own time back. I want to just be my own person. I'm looking forward to that."

"And you're really not going to leave the door open just a crack?" I asked. "For Sophia? For [my own daughter] Sophie?"

Again that warm laugh. "I'm going to be cheering them on. I hope to be around when we finally elect a woman president. That would be a great experience for me, to be up there cheering."

In a separate interview the same month, she said "I have ruled it out":

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/10/clinton-definitely-leaving-politics-or-may-stay.html


Yeah, but I don't know, expressing interest in returning to private life is barely a denial at all and "I've ruled it out" also seems par for the course for someone who wants to be coy as long as she can.


Here's what I had after about a year of Obama's presidency.

I think she'll step down at the end of 2012, write a book for 5 million dollars, campaign for Democrats in 2014 and use that election as a gauge of political winds.  If they portend well for Democrats, I'd say it's better than 50-50 she runs.

Not too bad.
166  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sarah Palin is thinking about a 3rd Party candidacy in 2016. on: June 25, 2014, 10:03:53 am
Even Republicans and Hillary-haters should root for a Bush-Clinton-Palin race. Imagine that debate. Too amazing to resist. If you are not rooting for it, shame on you.
167  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Hillary getting overexposed? on: June 25, 2014, 08:38:35 am
Not from the perspective of her publisher.
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you #Ready4Hillary on: June 25, 2014, 08:24:02 am
I'm ready for all the coronation hype to die once she declines.

If you had asked me in 2012, I would have insisted she wouldn't run. It just didn't seem as likely then? I can't exactly explain what changed, but now, I think it's pretty obvious she's running.

What changed is that in 2012 she was consistently denying that she would run, and now she isn't.


I thought that was earlier in Obama's term. Even then there was no reason to take the denials at face value because she going to deny it even if she were running. Also, her denials were often non-denial denials. Think it's been clear since at least 2011 she'd run.
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you #Ready4Hillary on: June 24, 2014, 11:55:05 pm
I'm ready for all the coronation hype to die once she declines.

What on Earth gives you the idea she wouldn't run?
170  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Absolutist (New Yorker) on: June 24, 2014, 05:44:55 pm
I'm baffled by everyone around these parts underestimating Cruz in the primary. He's got an immaculate conservative record and Palin's flair, but unlike her, he's extremely intelligent and apparently a monster debater. I don't know that he'd get past the last establishment-approved choice standing but it's not that unlikely; he seems a much stronger candidate than any conservative McCain or Romney had to contend with. I'd call him the single likeliest Republican to be one of the last 2 standing in the primaries.

I totally agree.  Ted Cruz is one of those politicians who has a real dynamism and talent.  I can't think of a conservative Presidential candidate who could have said that about in the past.  He may have problems in New Hampshire because he's too conservative, but he ought to win Iowa and South Carolina.  

Some people are put off by him because he's obnoxious, sure.  But, being obnoxious is a huge plus in terms of a Republican primary.  Think about 2012, what separated Gingrich and Santorum from Pawlenty?  Santorum and Gingrich were obnoxious.  Ted Cruz has that edge where he's mean and obnoxious, and he has a sales pitch that could work in 2016.  

Looking at 2016, only Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have a sales pitch.  They can give you a good explanation for why they are the unique, right candidate in one sentence.  The candidate who can do that usually wins.  Just look at 2008, Obama was the change candidate, Clinton was the vote for me candidate.  Looking ahead to 2016, only Cruz and Paul have demonstrated that they have that potential message and style that will actually connect.

Yeah, there is a similarity between Cruz and Gingrich in the flavor of their appeal to the GOP, and I would include Christie as having it too. The key difference is Cruz isn't corrupt like Gingrich and corrupt and too liberal for many GOPers like Christie.

I don't know that I agree Santorum was abrasive in the same way. But he also didn't have anything close to Cruz's political talent or ability to raise money.

As far as Cruz and Paul, they'll probably go after each other pretty hard as they're fighting for the same turf. Paul has one big advantage you point out that he'll play better in New Hampshire. But because of his heresies he'll have many more openings to attack than Cruz will. And he also seems like a much less disciplined candidate than Cruz is.
171  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you #Ready4Hillary on: June 24, 2014, 05:33:55 pm
This is a useless thread but I want to procrastinate so you got me.

As president, she'll perform similarly to Bill and Obama. As far as the election, hopefully GOP primary mayhem will bring relief from a likely boring D primary and general election.
172  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: FIFA 2014 World Cup - Official Discussion Thread on: June 24, 2014, 05:25:05 pm
7 of the 10 New World nations have qualified. Possible to get to 9/10 if Ecuador and US get in (Honduras is still technically alive, but it would take a miracle). Also it is possible that only 4 of the 16 qualified teams will be from Europe. Wouldn't that be something!

Not unrealistic to see 6 of 8 from Americas.

Huh

Its 10 American teams.

He probably means that potentially we could have 6 teams from the Americas out of the 8 that compose the QFs.

Yes I did. Brazil/Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica, Argentina, USA.
173  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: FIFA 2014 World Cup - Official Discussion Thread on: June 24, 2014, 05:01:19 pm
7 of the 10 New World nations have qualified. Possible to get to 9/10 if Ecuador and US get in (Honduras is still technically alive, but it would take a miracle). Also it is possible that only 4 of the 16 qualified teams will be from Europe. Wouldn't that be something!

Not unrealistic to see 6 of 8 from Americas.
174  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: FIFA 2014 World Cup - Official Discussion Thread on: June 24, 2014, 04:45:27 pm
Looks like Italy wasn't ready for this World Cup. They were a bit al dente for my taste.

Poor Spain. Couldn't even hang on to win biggest choke of the tournament.
175  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Absolutist (New Yorker) on: June 24, 2014, 04:38:04 pm
I'm baffled by everyone around these parts underestimating Cruz in the primary. He's got an immaculate conservative record and Palin's flair, but unlike her, he's extremely intelligent and apparently a monster debater. I don't know that he'd get past the last establishment-approved choice standing but it's not that unlikely; he seems a much stronger candidate than any conservative McCain or Romney had to contend with. I'd call him the single likeliest Republican to be one of the last 2 standing in the primaries.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 109


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines