Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2016, 08:58:19 pm
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 ... 410
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: MyAJC: Georgia Republicans scrambling to defend it for Trump on: Today at 07:30:38 pm
Over the past eight years, Georgia's shift in demographic terms (i.e.: likely voters) has been enough to improve Democrats' hypothetical margin of loss/victory in the state by one point each year; take the 2008 support figures for each group and project them onto the likely 2016 Georgia electorate, and McCain +5 becomes Clinton +3.

I'm not saying that is going to happen - in fact, I think it won't - but it does illustrate that a) there is some wiggle room there in between maxing out what is theoretically possible based on what happened eight years ago and what happened four years ago, and b) this isn't a situation comparable to PA or any other fool's gold state. The problem is that GA is highly inelastic and has relatively low rates of voter participation and registration overall. If people voted in GA at rates like they do in the Midwest, for instance, it'd be game over for the GOP. Instead, it is probably going to take another 8 years before GA is considered a truly competitive/lean-Democratic state.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Upshot: Trump's two paths to 270 electoral votes on: July 28, 2016, 04:43:06 pm
How is winning NV more likely to happen than winning CO or VA? Hell, even WI or PA?
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Clinton recreate the Obama coalition? on: July 28, 2016, 04:34:59 pm
It depends on what you mean by "the Obama Coalition". Personally (and I wrote a very lengthy post about this on AAD, after somebody tried to claim that the Obama Coalition was the "core" of the party), I consider the Obama Coalition to be the added elements that were not voting for Democrats (or voting at all) prior to 2008. I do not consider the entirety of the Democratic electorate in 2008 and beyond to be the Obama Coalition. The Obama Coalition as it emerged in 2008 was likely created by equal parts of increased turnout and shifts in support.

Black Voters: Support - Likely will not drop back to the 89-90% D mark where it resided prior to 2008. I'm expecting it to be somewhere between 91-93% D; basically halfway in between 2004 & 2008. A lot of people forget that the black electorate is disproportionately female. In the Deep South, females comprise more than 60% of black voters. This is in many ways just as exciting of an election for these females as 2008 & 2012 were. I expect black females will support Clinton by the same margins as they did Obama in 2012. Since they are definitely more than half of the national black electorate, the swings among black males toward the GOP will not move the needle a whole lot.

Black Voters: Turnout - I expect turnout as a whole to be down a bit, and the same for black voters. It won't be by a whole lot - black voters are actually very reliable voters even in midterms once they begin voting with any regular frequency - but it'll probably resemble whatever the overall change in turnout for the entire country does.

Latino Voters: Support & Turnout - Will be more Democratic and the increase in turnout may be larger than it was between 2004-2008. This group will either outperform or outright defy the national trends and those of almost every other group.

Women: Support & Turnout - Will be more Democratic. Turnout may be down compared to 2012, but it'll closely resemble whatever the national trend is and therefore women will retain their lean-majority share of the electorate.

Millennials: Support - At this point, this generation can't drop below 55% Democratic and it was 60% for Obama in 2012 (66% in 2008). This is where the largest amount of disgruntled behavior resides in terms of animosity toward Clinton, but I really don't believe it's exceptional in terms of defying decades of political bitching where people say they won't support a candidate and then largely end up doing so. Trump is just so antithetical to them. I expect Clinton will get the 60%. And she'll get it because...

Millennials: Turnout - The Millennial bloc is growing so rapidly in terms of eligible voters that even if a fair share of whiny folks decide not to show up or show up and vote for a third party, it's not going to matter much. We're now reaching the point where the share of Millennials in the electorate is really going to start ramping up as many of them enter their 30s and even are preparing to cross the 40-mark; this is when generations tend to start "coming online" in terms of really voting their weight. You very well may have a situation in which Millennial turnout (% of registered voters) is lower than 2012, but the number of Millennial voters is several million more than it was four years ago.

Suburbanites: Support & Turnout - Suburbanites have very high rates of voter registration and participation, and aren't the types who are going to be convinced to stay home because of any one particular contest. I expect their turnout figures will be on par with 2012. Support for Clinton will be better than it was in 2012, largely because of women.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Landmark Communications/WSB-TV: Georgia - Trump + 2 on: July 26, 2016, 09:41:31 am
I always forget between election cycles which GA pollster is absolute garbage and which one is mediocre, but I think Landmark is the mediocre one (and InsiderAdvantage being the garbage one). With that being said, two points:

1) Mark Rountree and other GAGOP operatives have a track record of putting out Dem-friendly polls in the summer; I think in order to scare the party into doing a better job and making sure they don't lose

2) Presidential elections aren't subject to runoffs in Georgia, but usually, you want to see a Democrat at 50 in polls if they're going to win. In this case, that's probably still true even without the runoff, just because of how the race closes in the final weeks; two-third to three-quarters of "undecideds" end up breaking GOP in the end, so unless a Democrat is ahead by 3-5 in the final weeks here, it's likely not going to be a victory
5  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas in Philly Megathread on: July 25, 2016, 11:19:01 pm
A record number of Atlasians converged upon one place! I won't tell you who specifically, but...

6  Forum Community / Forum Community / Atlas in Philly Megathread on: July 23, 2016, 11:43:32 pm
I'm not sure it has been mentioned on here - probably not, and probably for good reason - but a cadre (a dozen or so) of Atlas posters are going to be in Philly this week for the convention and I guess this can be the big ol' megathread for it!

There is a tentative scheduling of events throughout the week but I'm not in charge of that and it has not been fully finalized yet, but maybe somebody will post it here once completed.

More to follow, I have to get up in like four hours and ride with BK to the Sister of Citily Love
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: So are Pollsters under sampling Hispanics a major issue? on: July 23, 2016, 01:29:31 pm
Is it a "major problem" in terms of producing fundamentally different results in polling when compared to the overall election result (EC)? No. The vast majority of Latinos live in safe D/R states and therefore won't be driving swings large enough to upset the overall result. Those in swing states (with the exception of FL) are relatively small in number and such a discrepancy would only impact the most narrow of elections. Even in states like CO & NV, the polling discrepancy would only impact things if the election there was within 1-3 points.

So, it matters in FL and might matter in AZ, but otherwise...I don't think it matters.

It's a major problem in the long-term, though: pollsters need to figure out how to sample this demographic or their polls will increasingly become inaccurate even if they manage to navigate the internet/cell phone/land-line hurdles.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton VP news LATEST: NYT: Kaine's the frontrunner; announcement Fri afternoon on: July 22, 2016, 05:29:34 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXua8tGe_WI
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Latino Polling MT - After RNC Day 4 Clinton +63 / 87% agree Trump is 'bully' on: July 22, 2016, 05:24:04 pm
The Hispanic vote floor this cycle seems to be about 70% and can go as high as 90% in a worst-case scenario. If Hispanics start voting like African-Americans, it's lights out for the GOP.

Meh, not necessarily. If you adjust the Latino vote to 90% D, Asian vote to 80% D and increase turnout for both groups by 5 points, the electoral map is identical to 2012. It creates a nice mandate via the popular vote, but doesn't actually affect the meaningful outcome in any way. I'm sure this is part of the reason why the GOP doesn't seem to care all that much in the short-term about alienating these people: most of them live in solid blue/red states.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton VP news LATEST: NYT: Kaine's the frontrunner; announcement Fri afternoon on: July 22, 2016, 05:13:46 pm
Oh yay now they're playing Fight Song; so we're definitely not getting an announcement.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton VP news LATEST: NYT: Kaine's the frontrunner; announcement Fri afternoon on: July 22, 2016, 05:06:08 pm
Why would she push it to the weekend unless she doesn't want a lot of hullabaloo about it? Dear God, I was right: IT'S CRIST.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Male escorts in Cleveland have been making bank this week on: July 21, 2016, 11:58:11 pm
Obligatory video from 2012.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican National Convention **live commentary thread** on: July 21, 2016, 10:00:31 pm
"We don't want them in our country" will be a good soundbyte.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican National Convention **live commentary thread** on: July 21, 2016, 09:56:39 pm
What is the crowd chanting?
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican National Convention **live commentary thread** on: July 21, 2016, 09:51:59 pm
Is it just me, or is his accent getting more New York-y as we go along?
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican National Convention **live commentary thread** on: July 21, 2016, 09:43:25 pm
What's happening right now.

Is somebody heckling them? Is that why he stopped and they're all yelling "USA"?
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican National Convention **live commentary thread** on: July 21, 2016, 09:42:39 pm
Is somebody heckling them? Is that why he stopped and they're all yelling "USA"?
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican National Convention **live commentary thread** on: July 21, 2016, 09:29:02 pm
It's like back to the 90's with this speech.

Crime is going up, that's a fact.

Um... it's not?

Have you seen Ferguson, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago?



19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican National Convention **live commentary thread** on: July 21, 2016, 09:12:42 pm
"We're going to change the labor laws" to shrink the pay gap
"Equal pay for equal work"

^^^ More proof that Republicans will clap for anything, so long as it's a fellow Republican that says it.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican National Convention **live commentary thread** on: July 21, 2016, 09:12:14 pm
WUT
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's chances of winning Wisconsin just got lower on: July 21, 2016, 02:54:02 am
Quote
It is when states like Alabama keep shutting down DMV offices.

Looks like the maximum distance is about 50 miles. Pretty good coverage, IMO.



So, let's post a map that actually illustrates concisely where there are no driver's license services, instead of a misleading one that shows all services and makes it look like less of a problem. Disproportionately, it is the Black Belt counties that have had their license offices shut down. The official argument is that these areas are poorer and have less tax revenue. No sh**t. So let's require a government ID in order to vote and ensure the people who have the hardest time obtaining them have to go further than everybody else in order to get it, instead of chalking it up to the cost of doing business within the arcane parameters that they've established. It is strategic, and not seeing that is clearly indicative of hackery.

You say "you've lived in the South", but at the same time, seem to think that the overwhelming majority of predominately black, poorer and rural people can just hop into a vehicle and drive 50 miles like it's nothing. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were approaching this from a completely different mindset! If they could, they'd likely already have a license. Not having a license is indicative of not having reliable transportation and/or the funds/documentation necessary to get one. I'm wondering if your previous argument holds up: would you drive someone 50 miles + gas for $10?

Let's just assume that have access to reliable transportation. Maybe they decide to drive illegally to the DMV, or maybe someone takes them. We'll say $5 - $10 for fuel, and a 4-year license is $36.50. We're getting awfully close to $50 already. Hopefully, you don't need a birth certificate, which is another $15 in Alabama. There's a less than insignificant segment of those without driver's licenses who are in the situation because they don't have birth certificates. In another 10 years or so, they won't be a problem for the most part, but they still are today.

10% of whites don't have a photo ID.
25% of blacks don't have a photo ID.
10% of whites are in poverty.
25% of blacks are in poverty.

Most people have a photo ID. The ones that do not have them, don't have them for very specific reasons and because of limitations that most people would consider mere inconveniences to be shrugged off. This isn't rocket science. Anecdotal experiences and bootstrap arguments don't solve the problem, as they hardly ever do: poverty is the determining factor.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's chances of winning Wisconsin just got lower on: July 21, 2016, 02:34:21 am
Quote
the percentages are larger in the South for very obvious reasons.

I have helped a minority lady obtain her photo ID after it was stolen from her. Again, this did not take long and I felt it was my civic duty to do what I could.

I used to be the equivalent for Uber in the community and would charge people 10 dollars a ride to get these sorts of things done.

What you're talking about and attributing to racism, I called a business opportunity, and I made a fair amount of money supplying that community with the convenience of riding in an automobile for the price they were willing to pay, with a trusted driver and a car in good condition.

So, again - if you had 10 bucks on you, you could get it done in an afternoon, even if you had no access to public transit or to a car. And this was in the days before Uber.

I'm sorry, I've lived in the South. That dog ain't gonna hunt.

I'm sorry, but Texas isn't the South. Furthermore, attributing your voluntary action on one occasion as a rebuttal of the problem at hand isn't one...and bragging about how you made and there's money to be made off of poor people who are going to have to spend even more money to get a required ID the first place - not to mention the time (whether paid or unpaid) - proves the point of why these laws exist in the first place.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's chances of winning Wisconsin just got lower on: July 21, 2016, 12:47:40 am
It's also worth noting that I'd have no problem whatsoever with voter ID if the federal government (which is the only way it'd get done in a uniform and reliable fashion; not because I just love federal government) would take charge and disperse them to every citizen via mail, as some have already suggested.

There is no inherent need for it to be a "photo ID". The only way in which that gets done is to use the pre-existing system of inconvenience (requiring people to visit a government office in order to have their picture taken; costs money, takes up time and requires people who largely don't have driver's licenses to find a way to commute the distance - those are largely the obstacles for many who don't have them currently).

Create a single database that elections officials and precinct workers use to mark off voters as they vote on each Election Day. That ID cannot be used to vote on the same day anywhere else in the United States. It ensures "one person, one vote" is maintained regardless and the propensity for in-person voter fraud isn't going to be any more so than it is today (i.e.: virtually non-existent).

If a voter ID is lost, the likelihood of the person finding it trying to vote with it is so ridiculously low that it's not even worth consideration, and there aren't going to be mass numbers of people trying to generate fake IDs (the genuine IDs can be made with various forms of security/anti-counterfeit measures included quite easily) across dozens or hundreds of precincts and driving to each on Election Day...which would be the only option for widescale fraud by an individual; it's not as if the poll workers wouldn't notice the same person coming into the same precinct multiple times on Election Day trying to vote with different voter IDs.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's chances of winning Wisconsin just got lower on: July 21, 2016, 12:30:44 am
Quote
America doesnt have National ID cards, so a large portion of society doesn't have Photographic ID like passports or driving licences.

'Large portion of society?'

There are over 240 million Americans with a valid driver's license. Only 185 million Americans voted. This is a complete non-issue. And I'm not even counting other forms of valid picture ID.

10% to 15% of the adult citizen population, depending on the state; the percentages are larger in the South for very obvious reasons.

In the Deep South, large pluralities/majorities of those without valid photo IDs are poor & older black voters - at the same time that one-quarter or more of all black adult citizens lack a valid photo ID, so...the notion that "Seriously?" is pushing in a coded fashion (that all black people swing by the liquor store after picking up a pack of smokes and some watermelon, so what's the big deal about showing ID?) is nothing but mere stereotyping.

Also, the assumption you seem to be making here doesn't make the point you seem to think it does: there are millions of people who vote/have voted without ID, and there are millions of people who have ID and don't vote.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Luntz to delegates: GOP has 'lost' the millennial generation on: July 20, 2016, 11:33:24 pm
Millennials love government. They believe that government can do everything for them. Government can start your car. Need a job? Go sign and apply for a federal government job.
 Pregnant? Ask the government to fund for my child's diaper.  their sugar daddy. Without it, they can't survive in the real world. They don't know anything about self reliance. They think that abolishing capitalism, abolishing banks is a good thing, yet they use smartphones and cell phones. They think that America got what it deserved on 9/11 because America is "racist, sexist, imperalist, and too hyperpatriarchial. I know a LOT of millennials who believe America deserved 9/11. Of course the GOP may lose millennials. Once capitalism is abolished and we have more white shaming shows, we'll see what happens. We have millennials who want government to fund condoms and reparations. Of course millennials love government. Without it,  it shows how empty and talentless they are.

I love how absolutely clueless and condescending this argument is! Smiley
Some of it is the truth. A lot of millennials believe America deserved terror because of the country's past.  

Did you see thousands of Millennials chanting and cheering down on 7/11?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 410


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines