Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 21, 2017, 11:01:09 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 375
1701  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Will you vote for Trump this general election? on: April 30, 2016, 01:02:40 am
Absolutely not. I will probably vote for Gary Johnson, but there's a chance I might simply write in a personal friend if Johnson upsets me somehow.
1702  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kaine doesnt want Veep on: April 30, 2016, 12:58:35 am
There's no way to know if this is legit or just for the papers. Considering what a strong favorite Hillary is in the general election, though, I have to wonder if she might find it more worthwhile to reward someone who has been very faithful to the Clintons than to branch out to some other part of the party. I think McAuliffe is extremely undervalued as a possible VP pick.
1703  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Trump win the youth vote by default? on: April 29, 2016, 03:56:57 pm
Erm, Millennials despise Trump (with one notable, interesting exception). My college-campus precinct put him in fourth place (behind Kasich, Cruz, and Ben Carson, even though Carson had already dropped out by then), and exit polling has him consistently doing worse among younger Republicans, with the effect intensifying the further west you go (in Nevada, he won the state by 21 points and lost the under-30 vote to Rubio by 6 points). In Ohio, 18-24 year-olds voted 43% Kasich, 23% Trump, 20% Cruz, and I'm fairly confident Cruz actually beat Trump among those under 21. The exception is the Northeast broadly, and especially New England, where the pattern is the opposite and he seems stronger among younger voters than older voters. But states in this area are so strongly Democratic that it really won't matter.
1704  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Punks trying to storm CA GOP Convention. on: April 29, 2016, 03:27:54 pm
It must be terrifying to be confronted with the fact that hundreds of people disagree with you. Did you manage to get to a couch before you fainted, dainty lace handkerchief held to your brow?
1705  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How Donald Trump made me proud to be Hispanic on: April 29, 2016, 01:35:24 pm
This probably applies to millions more.
1706  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why did the media love Rubio so much? on: April 29, 2016, 01:33:46 pm
It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.

So you're saying that if nobody had noticed that he's an empty suit, he would have won?

Yes, and I'm saying he came much closer to pulling it off than this thread seems to realize. In the sense that, of all of his opponents, only Christie seemed to notice, and even then he only managed to demonstrate it at the very last moment.

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.

But they were still in the tank for him long before "3-2-1" was ever a thing and even after he imploded in the debate and in NH. In fact, they were in the tank for him since the day he announced his campaign even when he was irrelevant and polling at 3%. Watching all the pundits salivate over him and metaphorically give him fellatio was nauseating. They literally said he won like every debate, besides the NH one. I never really had a gripe with Rubio, at least no more than I had gripes with any other generic right wing senator, but the media's outright shilling and fawning made me despise him. I mean, I voted for Obama and think he's been a good president, but even to this day I cringe whenever I read some pundit talking about how he's the best thing since sliced bread. Must be PTSD from being a 2008 Hillary supporter. Tongue

I don't know that I noticed much Rubio fawning before the fall of 2015, by which point it was clear that the candidate in the race with the largest personal following was Donald Trump; that Trump's path to victory lay through a divided field; and that the only semi-competent candidate in the race who was capable of uniting the very disparate elements in the GOP opposed to Trump (someone who could win Manhattan Island and southwest Missouri) was Marco Rubio. So a lot of the fawning made sense.

I think the fact that Rubio ran at all in 2016 might've been a hint at some of the problems with his candidacy. No path to victory for him existed at all before the entrance of Donald Trump, which neither he nor his team nor anyone else predicted. Rubio did not represent any geographic area (Bush was the Floridian candidate until quite late in the game), nor any particular ideology or cause until anti-Trumpism became a thing.

As for the Time cover from 2013, it made decent sense. Rubio had been on the VP shortlist in 2012 after just 2 years in the Senate and it was very clear that he was going to run for President eventually, even if 2016 was way too early for him.

Rubio was the establishments choice.

The establishment have some level of control over the media.

The discomfort that Trump caused both parties is very attractive to Americans who are looking for a clean slate.

Rubio had a horrible spoilt private school boy persona which was attractive to no one.

But Jeb was the initial establishment choice, and the media savagely ripped him apart like a pack of rabid hyenas and loved every second of it, so was that really much of a factor?

Not a very big payday for his $120 M investment in the media then.

Jeb's pre-Trump path to victory was in fact the same as Trump's -- to keep the field divided as long as possible and rack up first-places with under 40% of the vote; the field was so splintered before Trump that "voters who remember the Bush legacy fondly" were in fact the single largest group. Trump tore his campaign off the rails and there was no longer any path to victory for Jeb.
1707  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why did the media love Rubio so much? on: April 29, 2016, 02:30:27 am
It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.
1708  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Trump wins Indiana Tuesday, is Trump the GOP nominee? on: April 29, 2016, 01:41:35 am
Yes in the sense that he's won the election process. This being Ted Cruz, I don't think we can rule out the nuclear option being pulled until the moment of the first ballot being cast. Also no in the sense that I'm very confident Cruz and Kasich continue to California regardless of anything that happens in the interim.
1709  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Indiana- Clout Research GOP Primary Poll: Trump +2 on: April 29, 2016, 01:39:48 am
I quoted the same CNN article with the "8-10", so I don't know what you're trying to demonstrate with that. The alleged Trump internal is literally from some random guy's Twitter; he has no connection to the Trump campaign besides being a supporter.

I'll give you PJ Wenzel sitting on the board of Clout Research and being anti-Trump. That part's real.

Since when does Trump have internals? The Manafort hirering?
My guess is if these "internals" are true, it would come from the Manafort hiring. He obviously stopped the bleeding with unpledged delegates in PA, so you would think they had some sort of micro-polling available in crucial states like PA, IN and CA.

My guess is if these internals were true, Donald would be promoting them himself instead of leaking them to some random guy with a radio show who is currently arguing with random Twitter users about the Holocaust.
1710  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should foreign policy doves vote for Trump? on: April 29, 2016, 01:16:04 am
I guess if "dove" now means "screw the rest of the world", sure.

Eh, we'll get screwed harder.
1711  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Cruz drop out if he loses IN? on: April 29, 2016, 01:11:57 am
Trump has no internals. The 20 points number isn't real. CNN did report that Cruz's internals had him down 10 points, but they also said Fiorina helped by "a couple of points" and in every Midwestern state that's voted to date undecideds have broken heavily toward whoever has the bets chance at stopping Trump where it was clear who that person was; in states where it wasn't clear, they were split among different anti-Trump candidates. Trump is receiving a lot of votes, but so are his opponents; the percent of the primary vote he's receiving is a record low.

Again, Trump could totally win this. He's probably up right now, as a matter of fact. But trying to insist this is a double-digit race is ludicrous.
1712  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Indiana- Clout Research GOP Primary Poll: Trump +2 on: April 29, 2016, 01:08:41 am
OK, first of all, I haven't been talking at all about polling: I'm talking about results in areas nearby and demographically similar to Indiana. These will only work for prognosticating Indiana if voter preferences haven't meaningfully shifted. Comparison of Pennsylvania results to New York results shows that, at least in the Northeast, they clearly have.

Numerous leaks from the Trump campaign have indicated the campaign does not engage in internal polling. If you search his Twitter account, his most recent mention of internal polls dates back to when he was considering running for Governor of New York in 2014. Trump internal polls don't exist. An unnamed source on the CNN article talking about the Fiorina pick said that Cruz was down "8 to 10 points" earlier in the week, but that Fiorina helped by "a couple of points". It's fairly obvious that Cruz's strategy here very strongly depends on undecideds behaving the way they did in Ohio/Michigan/Illinois/Wisconsin, rather than Pennsylvania and Maryland. Either chronology matters or location matters, take your pick.

538 has also never rated Clout Research. They have rated St. Cloud State University, which is obviously similar-sounding; St. Cloud received a B-, which isn't a perfect grade but is far from a D.

If you don't know what you're talking about, then sit back and listen. There's no need to make sh**t up.
1713  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Indiana- Clout Research GOP Primary Poll: Trump +2 on: April 29, 2016, 12:43:42 am
Mid-to-high 30s is not his ceiling, but it has been his typical performance in Midwestern open primaries. Trying to draw a distinction between Trump's performance in Wisconsin and Illinois isn't particularly useful, because Trump got 36% in WI and 38% in IL. If the dates of the two primaries were flipped, Trump would've won Wisconsin while the opposition was still divided, and he would've lost Illinois to Cruz. Again, if Trump wins Indiana, it's through new supporters having been attracted either by distaste for the Cruz/Kasich deal or through his mid-Atlantic victories.

Trump had a terrible week because he was losing Wisconsin. He did not lose Wisconsin because he had a terrible week. His performance in Wisconsin polling did not shift at all during that week.

Trying to group Minnesota in with Wisconsin is even less useful, because Minnesota was a closed caucus and Trump performed way worse. The difference is incredibly marginal.
1714  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Killer Inside Me Likes Ted Cruz on: April 29, 2016, 12:15:18 am
Atlas Forum would find this article "strangely relatable".
1715  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Indiana- Clout Research GOP Primary Poll: Trump +2 on: April 29, 2016, 12:11:57 am
Methinks we're calling the race for Trump a bit early. Remember, results in the NE don't tell us much about Indiana.

Mostly agree.  I think Cruz will narrowly win Indiana in the end and do great in Nebraska, proving that nothing has really changed in the Midwest.  But then Trump nearly gets his Northeast numbers on the West Coast, in which case he will still have a pledged majority unless he screws up WV and gets absolutely nothing from IN. 

I don't buy into the IN is similar to the Plains states meme. To me, it is more of an extension of the Rust Belt, Chicagoland and Kentucky to the South, a region where Trump has done well.

I don't see Indiana as Wisconsin.

Keep in mind the only state that Trump didn't win immediately surrounding Indiana is Ohio and that's only because Kasich is a sitting governor.

I agree with your reasoning but not your conclusion. Trump received 35% in Wisconsin, 36% in Ohio, and 38% in Michigan and Illinois, all of which were open primaries like Indiana is. The variation between the results in these states was in which of Trump's opponents did well or poorly. (Incidentally, the parts of Illinois and Ohio that look demographically like Indiana tended to be areas where Trump did worse, not better, than his average in those states).

Trump wins Indiana if backlash from the Cruz/Kasich deal and momentum from his mid-Atlantic wins get him new supporters. If you think Indiana will behave like its neighbors, then the conclusion that Cruz will win is inescapable. The argument for Trump winning here is reliant on a change in the broader electorate having occurred since the Wisconsin vote (since the New York vote, probably).
1716  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Cruz drop out if he loses IN? on: April 28, 2016, 11:57:28 pm
Vosem, you said a couple days ago that Cruz is favored to win in Indiana.  What made you change your mind?

I said this prior to the mid-Atlantic primary; some of the patterns shown seem to indicate Trump has developed real momentum (especially the results in rural Pennsylvania as compared to Upstate New York very clearly show Trump gained a significant amount of support over the course of that week). So I now think Trump is likelier than not to carry Indiana; as I've said before, demographically certain tendencies in the Northeast (especially age) are totally different than in the rest of the country, which means it's not impossible for his success there not to translate to the rest of the country, but momentum being limited to just one region is extremely unusual in what is effectively a two-candidate presidential primary.

The Clout Research poll has made me less certain, because it shows basically no change from the pre-mid-Atlantic numbers. If we accept it as correct (Clout has very little track record, but what exists is generally pretty good), it can indicate one of three scenarios: either that the momentum was never real outside the Northeast (in which case Cruz is probably on track to win Indiana as he was beforehand), that the Fiorina choice actually worked and has caused support to return to Cruz (in which case Cruz is probably on track to win Indiana), or that the shift that occurred in the Northeast was in the way undecideds behave on Election Day, in which case Trump is on track to win Indiana regardless.

The other scenario, of course, is that the Clout poll is simply wrong. Clout is no fabled gold standard.

The fourth possibility is that the Fiorina choice worked in the moment (remember that the Clout poll was taken over a period of only a few hours immediately after the Fiorina announcement) but will prove to be an ignis fatuus over the weekend.

That's sort of included in the possibility of "they could be wrong", though I don't really buy the idea that being conducted right afterwards is what made the poll wrong if it is. This isn't an offhand comment that people will forget, and I don't think anyone's opinion on Fiorina and the wisdom of picking her is going to change by Tuesday. Where the race was after Cruz made the announcement is where the race is now. If that's a 2-point margin with 8% undecided and 16% still pulling for Kasich...
1717  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should foreign policy doves vote for Trump? on: April 28, 2016, 11:36:19 pm
The guy whose entire foreign policy comes down to never ruling anything out?

Besides the fact that he's found it advantageous to be retroactively against the Iraq War in this campaign, what even makes you think he's more dovish?
1718  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Cruz drop out if he loses IN? on: April 28, 2016, 11:32:41 pm
Vosem, you said a couple days ago that Cruz is favored to win in Indiana.  What made you change your mind?

I said this prior to the mid-Atlantic primary; some of the patterns shown seem to indicate Trump has developed real momentum (especially the results in rural Pennsylvania as compared to Upstate New York very clearly show Trump gained a significant amount of support over the course of that week). So I now think Trump is likelier than not to carry Indiana; as I've said before, demographically certain tendencies in the Northeast (especially age) are totally different than in the rest of the country, which means it's not impossible for his success there not to translate to the rest of the country, but momentum being limited to just one region is extremely unusual in what is effectively a two-candidate presidential primary.

The Clout Research poll has made me less certain, because it shows basically no change from the pre-mid-Atlantic numbers. If we accept it as correct (Clout has very little track record, but what exists is generally pretty good), it can indicate one of three scenarios: either that the momentum was never real outside the Northeast (in which case Cruz is probably on track to win Indiana as he was beforehand), that the Fiorina choice actually worked and has caused support to return to Cruz (in which case Cruz is probably on track to win Indiana), or that the shift that occurred in the Northeast was in the way undecideds behave on Election Day, in which case Trump is on track to win Indiana regardless.

The other scenario, of course, is that the Clout poll is simply wrong. Clout is no fabled gold standard.
1719  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should Cruz drop out if he loses IN? on: April 28, 2016, 11:21:32 pm
The fact that Ted Cruz thinks naming Carly Fiorina as his VP is an effective form of pandering just perfectly illustrates his political ineptitude.  Sad!  He should have dropped out after announcing his low-energy collusion with Joan Cusack.

The Blue Avatars still don't realize just how big a disaster Cruz would be in a general election. Trump is a high risk/high reward candidate, while Cruz is a high risk/low reward candidate.

You're right about Cruz being a high risk/low reward candidate, absolutely, but you're dead wrong on Trump. He's a high risk/no reward candidate.

Anyway, no, Cruz should keep going unless such a moment is reached when Trump cannot mathematically be stopped on the first ballot. In the (unlikely, but still reasonably possible) event of Cruz winning Indiana, Cruz can still totally win the nomination. It was demonstrated in South Carolina that Bernie's coalition was insufficient to win the Democratic nomination. He's been continuing because the chance on paper exists and he wants to influence the party. This has still not been demonstrated for Cruz, and there's lots of precedent for candidates continuing even afte rit has been.
1720  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Price of an Unbound Delegate on: April 28, 2016, 10:50:28 pm
The actual unbound ones who decide their own vote, the ones that are linked to some power broker somewhere, or the ones who were handpicked by Ted Cruz?

Anyway, it depends on the specific person, but the vast majority of them are ideological fanatics, and the price is having conformed to the ideology for the longest time with the fewest missteps. For the rest, enough for either them or their broker to live comfortably for the remainder of their lives, so I would say a few million.
1721  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: What Song Would You Have Play as You Show Up at Your Prez Campaign Announcement? on: April 28, 2016, 08:22:08 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N-2h9LGHIY
1722  Forum Community / Forum Community / Do you always associate Indiana with Parks and Recreation? on: April 28, 2016, 08:09:02 pm
I've lived a large majority of my life in either Illinois or Ohio, and I've been to Indianapolis multiple times, and driven multiple times through the entire state on both I-90 and I-70. There's still nothing I really associate with the state besides it being the setting of Parks and Recreation.

When I was a child, I remember I used to really enjoy visiting Turkey Run State Park, which was in Indiana and maybe an hour's drive away, but I haven't been there since 2005.

There's literally nothing else in Indiana.
1723  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is Lindsey Graham's Hawkishness Well-Intentioned? on: April 28, 2016, 06:59:30 pm
Lindsey's a good dude at heart.
1724  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Democrats Must Win 30 Seats to Take the House on: April 28, 2016, 01:06:00 pm
The silver lining of 2016 is that 2018 is going to be a fantastic year. If Republicans manage to hold on to the Senate, I might even say an argument exists that it was worth it.

Well, may be. But - may be not too. With Republican party running too many right-wing idiots in too many districts (and districts favorable to such idiots (in the South, for example) are mostly represented by similar congressmen already).... And 2018 elections will be at least somewhat "tilted" to North-East (for example - out of 9 North-East states 8 will hold Senate elections and 8 - Gubernatorial in 2018)....

That's true, but there are Democratic Senate incumbents up in North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, Indiana, and West Virginia. Those are all states Trump is favored to win, and with the exception of Manchin in WV all of them won in 2012 through a mixture of bad opponents and presidential turnout; and the landscape in WV has shifted quite a lot from 2012 already, never mind by 2018. Even if Josh Mandel, whom I strongly support, doesn't succeed in his second Senate attempt here in Ohio, Republicans will still win back/significantly expand upon their Senate majority in 2018.

The silver lining of 2016 is that 2018 is going to be a fantastic year. If Republicans manage to hold on to the Senate, I might even say an argument exists that it was worth it.

Luckily if Clinton gets to put a few more liberals on the Supreme Court, gerrymandering will probably be declared unconstitutional.

Luckily that'll undo partisan gerrymanders in Illinois and Maryland. The net helps your party, I agree, but by no more than 10-15 seats; still not enough to take the House without a PV victory of a few points. The Democratic Party has the intractable problem that its areas of strength are both more compact and more intensely Democratic than Republican areas of strength, and therefore narrow Democratic victories will always result in Republican majorities under the system of single-member geographic districts (not as large as in 2012, but still). Remember how the neutral, non-partisan map in Illinois in the 2000s once gave Republicans a majority of the delegation? The only fix for this is either multi-member seats or a proportional system, and neither is achievable without a constitutional amendment.

I also question how easy it'll be and especially how long it'll take for a Clinton SCOTUS appointee to be confirmed, but that's incredibly difficult to discuss without knowing exact Senatorial numbers.

1725  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Assuming Trump is the Nominee...Which States Would Gary Johnson Win? Predictions on: April 28, 2016, 10:33:38 am
Nobody wants Clinton or Trump, and there's plenty of precedent for Libertarian or random Independent candidates in the high single digits when nobody wants either of the top two choices. As for states, I could see Utah if a really concerted campaign. Probably nowhere else, though in a strong campaign I could see him finishing 15-20 in the popular vote, a la Perot.
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 375


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines