Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 10, 2016, 12:54:02 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 370
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: In New Hampshire, there were more votes in the Republican primary on: Today at 07:00:08 am
Here are the states that voted on or before Super Tuesday in 2008 (when McCain formally secured enough delegates for the nomination), shaded by which party had more voters in its primary:



MI & FL were special cases (disqualified DNC delegates); no battlegrounds out of place otherwise. However, there were multiple examples where Democrats vastly over-performed in terms of turnout in states where they had no business being in the majority (not to be confused with Dixiecrat state/local primaries).

There's little to no connection between having the higher turnout in a primary and winning the general. The Republicans are excited like the Democrats were in 2008 after eight years of rule by the other party. Democrats, on the other hand, have been told to expect a coronation for the better part of a decade. It's not shocking at all to see Republican turnout thus far be higher in states where there are (roughly) equal numbers of Ds and Rs.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: I feel defeated on: Today at 03:57:31 am
This was always the problem with her campaign.  The first two states were the least friendly to her.

I despise Hillary as a person but aside from Bloomberg and Kasich she's the candidate I'd feel most comfortable with as president.  The main thing getting me down is these insane margins Sanders has with voters my age.  88-90% margins.  Is this generation really that insane?  I would say I hope they get wiser when they get into the real world and start having to understand how things actually work outside of fantasy-imaginationland, but I can't because voters in their 30s are also heavily favoring Sanders.

New Hampshire was always a terrible state for her though, it's a tiny retail politics state that prides itself on making up its mind late.  Hillary has always been bad at retail politics, its small size let Sanders and his rabid college supporters hit nearly everyone, and Hillary had to endure a brutal media cycle going into it:
  • Bill attacks Sanders:  "The big dog's getting nasty, remember when he blew it for her eight years ago?"
  • The press demanding she release the Goldman Sachs transcripts so they can take things out of context and make her look corrupt
  • More emailgate nonsense
  • Iowa coin flip conspiracy theories being propagated in pop culture, such as Colbert's show and everyone making the joke that Hillary should do the Superbowl coin toss
  • Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem's idiotic comments.  This absolutely dominated Clinton's media coverage going into the primaries
  • General stories about "WOW Bernie has a huge lead what does this mean for Hillary?"
So for those 40-50% of people who claimed they didn't make up their mind until the last few days, this was their impression of Hillary.  I listened to political radio and it was all "is it ok for Hillary to get $675K from Goldman Sachs?" and "were Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem out of line and what does this mean for Hillary's support among women?"  Meanwhile Bernie was on SNL and getting articles written about his appeal to young voters.

The premise is wrong. If anything, the localized atmosphere over the past week helped Clinton:

3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Superdelegates are an affront to democracy and should not exist on: Today at 03:15:12 am
Fun fact: superdelegates were originally created to minimize unwarranted party influence.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie's fundraising website crashes after being declared winner of NH on: Today at 03:13:40 am
They raised nearly $3 million in 4 hours.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Mormans in Nevada on: Today at 02:45:57 am
It's also worth noting that Mormons might not comprise one-quarter of the election in this primary, though I imagine the drop-off wouldn't be all that much. There was probably some "hometown pride" in 2012 that boosted levels of turnout. I'd surmise that there might be two very distinct types of Mormons in terms of voters: one group would be the type to vote in every single election no matter what (the "rule"), and the other group would be the type that actually shies away from politics (the "exception"). I know Mormons don't shun politics in the same way as Jehovah's Witnesses do, but I guess I'm imagining a similar dynamic for the latter group.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CBS News Announces Debate Criteria on: Today at 01:29:41 am
We're at the point now where networks don't have to be all careful and avoid stepping on candidates' toes. They could just say "you all are in, and the rest of you losers aren't viable - bye". There are five candidates remaining. At most, there were 6 before tonight.

These criteria are waaaay too complicated. Should have been simple like "won a delegate in IA or NH" or just top 5 in IA or NH.    .

With the latter of those, they'd have to battle accusations of racism, as it would exclude Carson.

Meh, they already shut the woman out of the process. This is the next logical step; I think everybody knew that once the GOP had its foray into "see we're totally not racist and no, we didn't hate Obama for his skin color - we're supporting the black guy" and got it out of its system, that we'd end up with an all-white, all-male field. It's just the "marketplace of ideas" in the GOP at work!
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Map: 2016 NH Primary Results by Township on: Today at 01:21:06 am
Likely my last update of the night - around 75% of precincts.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: Today at 01:00:02 am
The problem with people who seem to think that Hillary will guarantee a victory for the Democrats in November is that they're viewing this election through 2008-tinted glasses rather than 2016 ones.

The gender gap is wider than ever, thanks in large part to incessant, empty Democratic Party pandering to women on a whole host of issues that either we can't actually do anything about or that we can't do anything about until we can actually hold the House again (15 years?). This has the one-two punch of lessening the urgency about turning out for Democrats when we trot out the talking points every two years and do nothing about it, and driving male Democratic support down even further. We've been banking on the whole "well women are 1% more of the electorate and the gender gap doesn't matter if we get them to vote for us 1% more than men vote against us" thing for far too long, and it's only going to make elections (let alone governing) more difficult as we go on. Hillary being a woman is not a net benefit at this point (it might even be a liability). Unfortunately, this aspect of identity politics is wearing out in terms of effectiveness, as it would have sooner or later.

Nobody is enthusiastic about Clinton. I suppose there are a few upper-middle class women between the ages of 45-65 that are rearing to go for Hillary, but short of that, nobody is fired up over the concept. The Democratic Party coalition, and perhaps more importantly, the Obama Coalition, only works with enthusiasm. Take that out of the picture, make it a generic election and suddenly, we lose a percentage point of the PV due to black support regressing to the mean, another percentage point of the PV due to youth support and turnout regressing to the mean, and possibly an additional one-to-two points of the PV from a combination of regressed turnout and support across the rest of the spectrum.

Nobody trusts her. Sixty percent of the country thinks she is not trustworthy, and that fundamental feeling seeps into all of the important character questions and qualities that cost Romney the election in 2012. "Who do you think cares about people like you?", "Who is most in touch with the everyday experiences of your life?", etc. Romney lost because he was an out-of-touch person with a nine-figure net worth that people didn't trust to do the right thing. At best with Clinton as the nominee, we can only hope that the Republicans nominate someone who is equally shifty, wealthy and disliked by the public. That of course will result in a race to the bottom of the barrel, which will depress turnout and result in what I covered in the second paragraph.

"Her time" has passed. What do I mean by that? The time in which she as an individual would have been a great choice for the Party in a national election. It's not fair to her - 2008 was her year, and I cast my first presidential election ballot for her - but this is the reality. I'm not saying she'll lose, but what I am saying is that the whole "sure bet" thing with Clinton is a crock of crap.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 11:39:39 pm
IceSpear was literally the original Hillary hack who was convinced that Hillary would win with >70% of the primary vote, carry every state, would win the general by 20 points and planned on coming back to laugh at everybody else here who doubted that come primary time!

"Inevitable" was always the word, but it's so bad that he must now cling to the word "inevitable" in the context of "hey, she's inevitably going to slide by by the skin of her teeth because one quarter of the Democratic primary electorate doesn't know the name of the other candidate and so she'll run up the board with them" and "she inevitably beat Sanders in Iowa and that's all that matters"!
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 11:32:11 pm
Oh, let me guess: Hillary supporters in here being whiny and antagonistic after being delivered a brutal spanking in her latest underperformance? I'd recommend that everybody else stop engaging them. They've all been bragging and making grand assertions for years now, with a stealthy series of goal-posts being moved every time they fall short.

"But Hillary will win with 70% of the vote!"
"60%!"
"50%!"
"Hillary will destroy Bernie in IA"
"Hillary won* IA and it doesn't matter by how much - suck it"
"Who cares if Bernie wins NH by low double-digits? It's next to his home state!"
"It doesn't matter that Hillary lost by more than 20, there's Nevada!"

etc etc etc.

In other words: sooner or later, they might be right about something, but it won't be because they know any damn thing.

Actually, Sanders supporters are the ones moving the goalposts. Early on, the intellectually honest admitted that Iowa was a must win state for Sanders. Now suddenly just NH is enough to make him inevitable. lol

Except NOBODY SAID THAT EVER.

At least two people here have. And I'm sure many pundits have as well.

Lord, if we're going to start picking out "one or two people" from the crowd as the barometer, then we need look no further than you and your current, hilarious signature for an indictment and proof of my claims!
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 11:26:58 pm
Was this a record turnout for New Hampshire? Looks like NH had as many people turnout as IA, despite having just a little over half the population.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 11:25:51 pm
Oh, let me guess: Hillary supporters in here being whiny and antagonistic after being delivered a brutal spanking in her latest underperformance? I'd recommend that everybody else stop engaging them. They've all been bragging and making grand assertions for years now, with a stealthy series of goal-posts being moved every time they fall short.

"But Hillary will win with 70% of the vote!"
"60%!"
"50%!"
"Hillary will destroy Bernie in IA"
"Hillary won* IA and it doesn't matter by how much - suck it"
"Who cares if Bernie wins NH by low double-digits? It's next to his home state!"
"It doesn't matter that Hillary lost by more than 20, there's Nevada!"

etc etc etc.

In other words: sooner or later, they might be right about something, but it won't be because they know any damn thing.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Map: 2016 NH Primary Results by Township on: February 09, 2016, 11:13:28 pm
Getting a bit behind on the Democratic map, but nevertheless, we're getting closer.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Map: 2016 NH Primary Results by Township on: February 09, 2016, 09:48:14 pm
About 1/3 of all precincts now reporting.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Map: 2016 NH Primary Results by Township on: February 09, 2016, 09:00:44 pm
Map is finally beginning to fill in rather nicely; Clinton has yet to win a township other than Millsfield at midnight (in a literal 2-1 vote).
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Map: 2016 NH Primary Results by Township on: February 09, 2016, 08:31:52 pm
Slowly but surely, I'm bringing them online. Some of the bigger areas I'm having to wait for multiple precincts to all report before they can be included on the map. Additionally, AP's results are lagging behind a lot of other sources (as usual).
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 07:36:14 pm
What if we see The Harpy go down by 30 points or more this evening? Surely The Media will put the final nail in her coffin!
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Map: 2016 NH Primary Results by Township on: February 09, 2016, 07:33:42 pm
First update of the evening in the OP. I've got a spreadsheet tied to AP's results that will trickle in bit-by-bit, but I'll also be using AOSHQ's DD to help speed up the process since AP is slow as hell.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 07:07:50 pm
Decision Desk toplines:

Clinton 36.52%
Sanders 61.98%

!!!!!
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Map: 2016 NH Primary Results by Township on: February 09, 2016, 06:03:30 pm
Thanks for the links.

I wish the AP's version kept them categorized by county. For some reason when I open it currently, the page goes blank after I've scrolled down about half-way. It could be a simple glitch where the page length is screwing up after the end of the precincts listed, or it may be that I'm not able to see the list of precincts past that point. I guess I'll find out soon enough!
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET) on: February 09, 2016, 05:55:38 pm
This looks like an 8-12% win to Sanders.

Which in all likelihood means a 12-12 split in the delegates. Sanders will need more than 56.3% of the vote in one or both of the CDs to win a majority of delegates.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Buzzfeed exposť: The Anxiety Of Being Marco Rubio on: February 09, 2016, 05:41:29 pm
This reporting, combined with the well-documented instances of sweating like a pig all the time, pretty much confirms that Marco Rubio is an absolutely shaking nervous wreck 24/7, cannot be trusted to be anywhere near a button or switch where one ill-placed twitch could cause disaster, and is right on schedule to bust free from his thin facade of organic layering and go on a Terminator-like rampage at any moment.
23  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Non-Straights: Top or Bottom on: February 09, 2016, 05:22:56 pm
Fun fact: like 80% of "versatiles" are lying

Please elaborate.

They usually have pretty obvious preferences or tendencies; not genuinely "versatile" in terms of enjoying/preferring both equally, or doing both equally well for that matter.

Well a) most did indicate a preference, and b) it might have something to do with age.  I have a lot more to say on this, with my little analytical, data based mind, but alas, not here. So that is that.

Perhaps my statement was a bit muddied. I'm referring to the people - in general and not just in this poll - who claim to be explicitly versatile, and not the ones who say "vers/top" & "vers/btm". There are very few people who truly don't have a preference one way or another: in terms of the rest, it shows in their work!

However, when it does come to the "vers/x" groups, I feel like they can just mostly leave out that whole "vers" part; the "x" is usually a more accurate descriptor of the situation. More often than not, it seems like that inclusion is just to inflate the number of potential leads that they'll generate.

(I think we can exclude the "age" concerns you expressed from all of this - it's a personality, not a protrusion)
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Map: 2016 NH Primary Results by Township on: February 09, 2016, 01:02:22 am
UPDATED: 1:20 AM ET

25  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Attn Dave: Finishing CD results by state for 2012 election on: February 09, 2016, 12:01:38 am
I am not sure what I am doing incorrectly, but I am not able to get the Census boundary shapefiles to generate 1-pixel lines or display as a bare black and white image without dithering or pixelation. I've tried using all three resolutions of shapefiles available (500k, 5m & 20m), and I even uninstalled ArcGIS and reinstalled the latest version. This is what I get when I make the lines as small as possible:



If I zoom in a bit more, the lines get smaller, but even then, I still have this issue around the lines:



It's highly frustrating, as I'm completely unsure why it looks as such.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 370


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines