Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 24, 2016, 03:26:24 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 406
1  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: The White House: Griffin/Duke Administration on: June 23, 2016, 10:23:32 pm
Quote from: GRIFF-021
Tmthforu94 is hereby appointed as Emergency Elections Administrator.
2  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: The White House: Griffin/Duke Administration on: June 23, 2016, 10:19:57 pm
Quote
Determination of Date and Rules For June 2016 Federal Elections

Section 1: Determination of Election Dates
1. The June 2016 Atlasian federal elections shall begin between 0000 Eastern Standard Time and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on June 24th and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning.

2. The election shall begin between 0000 Eastern Standard Time and 0001 Eastern Standard Time and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning.

3. The President and Vice President shall take office at 1200 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday in the month after their election.

Section 2: Determination of Voter Registration and Voting Rules

1. A person may become a registered voter if they have attained eighteen posts and have been registered at the forum for at least 7 days. In registration, the person must state their name and State of fantasy residence; In addition, they may optionally state a political affiliation.
 
2. In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter seven days before the earliest possible commencement of the election. If a voter changes their state of registration between that time and the election, the state from which they were originally registered shall be the state from which their vote is cast.
   
3.If a person deletes their user account then their registration will no longer be valid.
   
4.Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for six months for which they are qualified to vote shall have their registration no longer considered valid. The said voter may only be deregistered after missing three federal elections, not including runoffs and special elections. A vote in a special election or runoff will be counted towards activity the same as a vote in a regular federal election. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.
 
5. Persons may only change their State of registration from one region to another region once every 180 days. Changes in State of registration may only occur within a single region every 24 hours.

6. If any voter will be unable to vote in a federal election during the time allotted, they may request to absentee vote at any time seven days preceding the election  The Senate may by appropriate legislation determine the procedure for absentee voting.
   
7. Persons who edit their post in which their vote(s) are contained at the place of voting after twenty minutes shall have their vote counted as void.

8.Any political party of three or more members is considered to be an organized political party.

9. All articles in this act should be retroactive covering the period of time between the ratification of the constitution and implementation of the constitution.

Sponsor: Rep. Classic Conservative (F-TX)

Alright, all, we are having a final vote on this amended version from the senate.

Please vote aye nay or abstain

Sign this now, pretty please <3

x Griff
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: ARG National: Clinton +9 on: June 22, 2016, 05:51:37 am
Before anybody gets too excited, remember that you can't spell "garbage" without the letters A,R & G.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Is this the best thing ever? on: June 22, 2016, 05:35:05 am
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How can Trump win Virginia? on: June 22, 2016, 02:23:50 am
He'll win Wisconsin before he wins Virginia; it's going to be to the left of it in all future elections. It's gone, gone, gone for the GOP, unless they run some low-energy guy like Kasich against a Democratic candidate like Sanders. Lots of NIMBYs and latte liberals in NoVA.
6  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Democrats' ceiling in the 2016 House elections? on: June 22, 2016, 01:43:43 am
Basically, the realistic ceiling in any election during this redistricting cycle is right at a majority (215-220)...and everything would have to go perfectly in order to hit it. There aren't going to be enough GOP House members who are willing to wrap themselves in the Trumpian flag nor not be able to avoid association in order for Democrats to win any sort of respectable majority in any environment.
7  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Why are White Hispanics labeled as White in Exit Polls? on: June 21, 2016, 09:12:27 pm
^^^ It's worth noting that California's numbers/discrepancy are nowhere nearly as bad as my county's, and that is largely because California has a much more established/older Latino population, and therefore a higher percentage of older Latinos who are citizens.
8  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Why are White Hispanics labeled as White in Exit Polls? on: June 21, 2016, 09:09:06 pm
The discrepancy between population and electorate is explained by four things: citizenship, age, registration rates and voter apathy.

My county is 33% Latino. I'll use it as an example. Approximately 45% of Latinos in my county are non-citizens. So the 33% Latino number drops to about 20% in terms of hypothetical citizen population just when factoring in citizenship.

When you break that down by age...it's atrocious: among those over the age of 50, you're talking about the vast majority being non-citizens. Among those under 30, the vast majority are citizens. Which age groups are most likely to vote? Olds. Latinos skew younger, and like most young people, don't vote in large numbers; the youngest generations are more Latino than the older ones, and a greater share of them are going to be citizens than adults. This means a disproportionate share of your Latino citizens are going to be in the under-18 category. So factoring in age to the citizenship question means that the citizen voting-age population drops a bit more in my county: perhaps to as low as 15%.

Next, you need to take into account voter registration rates. I don't have the precise national figures available right now, but Latinos - even the youngest adult citizens - register to vote at lower rates than their peers. In my county,  the Latino share of newly registered voters lags a couple of points behind their citizen voting-age demographics (as measured by the share of 18-30 voters). It's not a huge discrepancy and it's actually equalizing in a lot of the country, but this is one factor that can still add a bit of a handicap in some parts of the country.

Then you have to factor in that Latinos have lower turnout rates even among registered voters than white and black voters. It was roughly 50% turnout in 2012, compared to 65% turnout for whites and blacks. That's going to nerf your Latino share of the electorate even more.

At the end of the day, the Latino share of the electorate in my county in 2012 was somewhere between 11-12%. That's out of a total population that's 33% Latino.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will Trump do with white men? on: June 21, 2016, 05:43:39 am
I've been expecting for some time that it'd be the least malleable number among the race/gender demographics, and expecting that even with a bad performance, he'd stay at 60%. I'm really starting to think that he could fall below that by a few points. Voted 56-58%.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Man tried to pull gun at Trump rally to kill Trump on: June 21, 2016, 05:41:55 am
With regard to a couple of people asking why would someone want to give Trump sympathy, a boost in the polls or otherwise make him revered, you have to think like someone who would do this. In their mind, the motivation to prevent this guy from ever becoming President supersedes all else; "who cares if he's lionized after the fact, so long as he can never get into the office?".

Also, I can't wait for @RealDonaldTrump to announce on Twitter that he supports confiscating all LEO firearms and replacing them with batons.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump started June with $1.3 million... Hillary started June with $42 million on: June 21, 2016, 05:33:55 am
^^^ Just referring to the fact that Obama was outspent.

Quote
In the aggregate (campaigns, PACs, dark money, etc), I believe he was [outspent].
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump started June with $1.3 million... Hillary started June with $42 million on: June 21, 2016, 05:23:14 am
Money doesn't buy elections, as evidenced by Obama being vastly outspent in 2012... But it sure as hell helps
Obama was not vastly outspent in 2012.

In the aggregate (campaigns, PACs, outside spending, etc), I believe he was. Or maybe it was the other way around (Romney's campaign raised more than Obama's)? I can't recall which, but he was outspent in one of those two categories.

EDIT: It was the aggregate presidential spending. Romney had a huge advantage in outside spending that gave him the overall edge.



13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Orlando: melting pot of 3rd world miscreants on: June 20, 2016, 05:42:08 am
Yeah, assholes like this in our country with their lovely commentary and actions have pushed far more than 49 LGBT people to their deaths in recent years. Just because it isn't done directly or in one lump sum doesn't mean it is the smaller problem.

FYI, this is why the concern trolling from conservative la-la-land ("the Muslims are your real enemy") is ringing so hollow with the LGBT community: it's obvious to every affected person - from lived experience, often on a daily basis - who the statistically more significant threat is to the community in America.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Congressional Black Caucus opposes Sanders' requests on: June 19, 2016, 08:08:22 pm
13 of 43 CBC members live in states with party registration.

Not sure where you got that. I counted at least 21.

The list I was looking at may not be accurate/up-to-date. I also may have miscounted districts. In fact, I'm noticing discrepancies now that I look. I'm counting 20 now: NY (5), NJ (2), PA (1), MD (2), NC (2), OH (1), FL (3), LA (1), CA (3). I originally missed LA & CA.

So roughly half are in states with registration; half without. As far as states with registration, 28 have it (56%) and 22 do not (44%). Still seems like they're underexposed relative to the national situation...if it were even a legitimate fear (which it's not).
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Congressional Black Caucus opposes Sanders' requests on: June 19, 2016, 07:26:45 pm
Conservative Southerners strike again.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502

In a letter sent to both the Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns, the CBC is expressing its resolute opposition to two key reforms demanded by Sanders in the run-up to the Democratic convention: abolishing the party’s superdelegate system and opening Democratic primaries up to independents and Republicans.

"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter, which was obtained by POLITICO.

More than 40% of states don't have party registration, and most CBC members represent states that don't have party registration...so "showing your colors" isn't possible for a lot of voters in this country, and certainly not in many of the districts represented by the CBC.

20 of 43 CBC members live in states with party registration. For all intents and purposes, the remaining 23 are in states with some varying flavor of open primaries (15 of the 23 are in states where it is explicitly open). So...independents (and even Republicans in a good share of them) can already vote in elections where the majority of CBC members hold office. The world hasn't ended...

If this is a self-serving attempt (it definitely is for the superdelegates) with regard to representation in the party's electorate or process, then I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but...Latinos are increasingly coming online in the political process at the same time that they're trending Democratic. They're going to weaken everybody else's influence with time. Black voters being 25% of the Democratic electorate is almost certainly a high watermark that will begin shrinking slowly once again in the coming years.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary to place field staff in all 50 states on: June 19, 2016, 01:26:35 am
I'll believe it when I see it. For starters, Obama's campaign did the same in 2008...only to dismantle any staff operations in a majority of the days by Labor Day.

Let's also put this into perspective:

Quote
“Even if you have one person in Mississippi, voter contact ramps up the closer you get to the election, like a hockey stick. Let’s say that one person has organized 10 phone banks. They will be generating phone calls all day. It won’t turn that state blue because one person is there. But that volume will have an impact elsewhere.”

This will probably be the reality in a lot of those states if there is truly a "50 state effort". Any allocated resources can help, but it's important to keep grounded regarding the amount of potential benefit. Georgia has had one paid Hillary staffer on the ground for around a year now. The Democratic Party of Georgia has the better part of 20 paid staffers working right now on top of that. How much do you think all of this - combined with volunteer efforts - is going to move the needle in a state like Georgia? What do you think one person is going to be able to provide in a different state?

So I'm just saying...spending $20,000 or so to put one paid staffer in a state and have them coordinate whatever unpaid and inexperienced volunteers that might step forward isn't really what constitutes rebuilding state parties from the perspective of presidential campaigns/the national party. It can be helpful, sure, but it's not these workers are going to be around for years; we'll be lucky if they're there in most of these states through September. When you add to that the fact that these staffers are likely to be exclusively focused on Clinton, it doesn't actually do much to rebuild party infrastructure over the long-term.

If a targeted area for Clinton in a given state has a legislative or countywide race that would otherwise see the Democrat lose by half a point, then maybe it helps there. Otherwise, the only tangible long-term benefit I could see coming from this for a state party is if the Clinton campaign agrees to turn over their VAN data to them so that their records are more up-to-date for future efforts (spoiler alert: many campaigns do not do this; Obama 2012 was the first one to do so in modern times if I recall correctly).

17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: @PPPpolls News: Monthly North Carolina Poll Questions on: June 18, 2016, 11:47:39 am
Continuing on with the fact that the voting American public is ill informed we have this marvelous fact,
Quote
Latest @ppppolls: 56% of Romney's voters think the stock market has fallen under Obama. (It's up by more than 150%.)
(Not sure how he got this, but it was re-tweeted by @ppppolls, so I'm assuming it's true.)

It's games like this that undermines PPP's reputation as a pollster, you look like your organization is run by a bunch of partisan children. Of course huge portions of Romney voters would assume such a fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the 49 year old small-town mechanic isn't watching statistical data on stock market performance. I'm sure if you polled John Kerry's voters on a random fact about GWB's accomplishments they wouldn't buy it either, it's drilled into their heads.

Some of the questions are funny, some are poorly poorly made and could be pulled on some of the hyper liberals any day of the week.

Then the 49 year-old small town mechanic should do what previous generations of Americans were perfectly willing to do when asked such a question: state that they don't know. This definitely ties in with the more recent and intensified phenomenon of everyday rubes thinking that their opinions are facts and that they are better-equipped to understand complex problems than politicians and policy experts.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who will the LGBT community vote for? on: June 18, 2016, 11:35:09 am
Trump: "Ask the Gays"

The Gays:
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Is a "double bell curve" Clinton swing possible? on: June 18, 2016, 11:16:58 am
The national polls - more so as of late, but to a degree it is has been this way for months - seem out of line with battleground state polls. It seems to be a bigger phenomenon than in past elections. Most people assume one set of polls or the other must be off. Is it possible that both are correct?

Basically, is it possible that Clinton is going to overperform both in safe D states and safe R states, and that she will improve by much less compared to 2012 in battleground states (or even see Trump gain ground in battleground states as a whole)? This could lead to a stronger PV performance by Clinton than by Obama in 2012, but could result in the Electoral College being much closer than it was then.

Image to illustrate the notion; just a crude sketch to outline the broader principle. Don't hold the precise numbers in it as necessarily being indicative of my prediction or the reality.

20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Clinton raises a lot more money than Trump, will she send cash downballot? on: June 17, 2016, 02:39:04 pm
I understand the argument for redistributing campaign funds, but I feel it's somewhat sketchy.  The people who donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign, did that because they want her to use it to help become president, not so she could redistribute the cash to Jim Gray in Kentucky.  I don't have much spare cash to give right now, but I made a small donation to a candidate that I care about (who shall remain nameless!)  I'd be kinda pissed if I found out she gave my donation to Hillary.

Obviously campaign finance reform would fix this, but this is the system we have right now.

You have it the other way round.  The Hillary-controlled Victory Fund is something people donate to knowing that their donation will be split between Hillary and local democrats.

The scandal is that the directors were funneling the local half of the money back to Hillary.

In all honesty, it was probably one of those "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" things with these big donors giving up to $350,000...knowing it was going to be laundered back to the DNC/Clinton ("yeah, sure your money will be going to these state parties...").
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton vs Trump Primary County Map on: June 17, 2016, 02:36:20 pm
There were a lot of surprises I noticed in this map, but the one that probably surprised me the most is Colbert County, AL (that far northern one that Clinton won). It's a 81% white, 16% black county. Romney won 59% of the vote in 2012. Clinton barely eked out a victory against Trump here (50.13%).

Apparently this county is still heavily Dixiecrat at the local level; I don't see how else this could have happened, considering that Clinton's share of the Democratic primary vote here wasn't abnormally high compared to the rest of the area, she bombed in the surrounding counties against Trump and some of those counties have comparable black populations.

Overall, the GOP primary had 57% of votes cast; Dems 43%.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton vs Trump Primary County Map on: June 17, 2016, 02:28:00 pm
Are you using the Washington primary or caucus results for Clinton's vote totals? Washington had both a Democratic primary and a caucus, and the primary had many more votes yet rewarded no delegates.

For any affected states, I used the election with the largest number of votes cast (so for WA/NE, primaries).
23  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: The White House: Griffin/Duke Administration on: June 17, 2016, 02:14:15 pm
Mr. President, as one of your final acts in office, I was wondering if you could sign an executive order appointing me Duke of Newport for life.

As always, I remain your humble public servant.

I am pretty sure the whole "the President cannot grant Titles of Nobility" thing is still present in the Fourth Constitution, unfortunately. Otherwise, I'd be a huge fan of patronage.
24  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: The White House: Griffin/Duke Administration on: June 17, 2016, 02:04:42 pm
Quote from: GRIFF-020
Pursuant to Article V, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Fourth Constitution, I hereby designate windjammer as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton vs Trump Primary County Map on: June 17, 2016, 02:02:05 pm
Isn't Idaho a split state? The Dems had a caucus and the Republicans had a primary. It seems like that would be hard to compare.

I'm not really sure why I included Idaho in these maps. It was just close enough in terms of ratio for me to say, "hey, what the hell?".


Same with Kentucky, except the other way around.

Kentucky's "caucus" really isn't one, though, right (an actual precinct-by-precinct gathering that takes hours)? I was thinking it was like how the IA GOP caucus is a "caucus", but even less so.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 406


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines