Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 08, 2016, 10:34:23 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats: Will you support your primary opponent in the general election? on: January 13, 2016, 07:33:54 pm
Gladly and with enthusiasm. This country can't take four years of a Republican administration.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Minnesota polling says GOP has the state in their corner on: December 25, 2015, 10:50:26 pm
First off for the record this poll is two months old, not sure why it was posted now.

Second Minnesota has been trending Democratic across the board. No Republican has won a statewide race since 2006 (Tim Pawlenty). No Republican has gotten 50%+ of the vote statewide since 1996 (Arne Carlson).  The rural republican areas of the state are shedding population while the liberal Twin Cities have been booming.  Unless there is a Republican landslide nationally Minnesota is safe Democrat for the presidency in 2016.


Okay it is NOT trending Democrat. Lol. PS everyone, Minnesota democrats are typically moderate and fairly conservative on social issues. I see no reason why it is implausible for them to begin voting republican when democrats are increasingly liberal and are isolating white voters.

Minnesota Democrats conservative on social issues? Wow that's news to me and I live here.  The state has voted for those noted social conservatives Barack Obama, Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Dayton. In addition it was one of the first states to vote against an anti gay marriage amendment.

And yes Minnesota is trending more Democratic and not just at the Presidential level. see my above post.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Minnesota polling says GOP has the state in their corner on: December 24, 2015, 10:26:14 pm
First off for the record this poll is two months old, not sure why it was posted now.

Second Minnesota has been trending Democratic across the board. No Republican has won a statewide race since 2006 (Tim Pawlenty). No Republican has gotten 50%+ of the vote statewide since 1996 (Arne Carlson).  The rural republican areas of the state are shedding population while the liberal Twin Cities have been booming.  Unless there is a Republican landslide nationally Minnesota is safe Democrat for the presidency in 2016.

4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could Obama win a 3rd term (no 22nd Amendment)? on: December 03, 2015, 08:57:48 pm
He'd win even more convincingly then he did in 2012.

Economy is in better shape than 2012, demographic trends that favor  Dems continue,  GOP field is weak. Obama would win by somewhere between his 2008 and 2012 margins.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: CBS/NYT national: Trump 27% Carson 21% Cruz 9%; Clinton 46% Sanders 27% on: October 11, 2015, 08:25:17 pm
Has to worry the GOP that their top 3 candidates are not electable.

Even though Carson does better than the rest of the field in general election head-to-heads?

At this point in a campaign I will trust my gut over general election polls. Wait until someone goes negative on Carson for all the crazy sh**t he has said.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: CBS/NYT national: Trump 27% Carson 21% Cruz 9%; Clinton 46% Sanders 27% on: October 11, 2015, 08:14:27 pm
Has to worry the GOP that their top 3 candidates are not electable.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: CA- Field poll: Trump, Carson, Fiorina leading the pack on: October 11, 2015, 08:11:23 pm
What use is a 14 person primary poll of a state that will not vote until June? At most only 2-3 candidates will be left.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Primary calendar and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!) on: October 02, 2015, 12:33:47 pm
Official RNC schedule and delegate allocation rules (PDF)

https://www.gop.com/the-official-guide-to-the-2016-republican-nominating-process/
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Primary calendar and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!) on: September 26, 2015, 02:01:26 pm
According to Twitter the Colorado GOP has set the Caucus for March 1.

https://twitter.com/eluning/status/647811303726170112

Quote
Very few votes for moving @cologop caucus from March to Feb. it'll stay in March next year. #copolitics
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Primary calendar and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!) on: September 25, 2015, 11:23:54 am
I would like all state to allocate their delegates proportionally. Winner-take-all seems to be unfair to me, since you can easily have 4 to 6 candidates who have different appeal across a state. If FL would say that the statewide delegates are allocated by WTA and the district delegates are allocated 2x1 (winner gets 2, runner-up gets 1), that would be fairer.

Not sure what the fairest method is but the Republicans need some consistency in their allocation rules, the rules are allover the map. The Democrats system has it's flaws (Super Delegates)  but the basic framework is at least consistent.  Proportional both statewide and by CD, 15% threshold, 1/4 of delegates allocated statewide and 3/4 by CD.  Also the more Democratic CD's get more delegates.

I think in the Republicans' view is that it's consistent with their governing philosophy.  They wouldn't want to dictate to the states what to do, and they certainly won't impose proportional representation on everyone.  Even this year's change, making sure that caucus states bind their delegates proportionally to the vote at the caucus, is a huge and controversial change -- but one that is going to give a real boost to transparency next year.

It should be noted that the Democratic system has a lot of flaws too, many of which we saw in 2008.  As you mentioned, there are way too many superdelegates, as you mentioned.  The method of allocating delegates proportionally by congressional district also means a hell of a lot comes down to whether your congressional district has an even or an odd number of delegates.  In a close, Clinton-vs-Obama style fight, those districts with an even number of delegates are likely to split the delegates equally regardless of who wins the district.

Agree on the flaws in the Democrats system but still makes more sense than the way Republicans pick their nominee.  Biggest Republican system flaw is in states like California that give the same number of delegates on a WTA basis to Nancy Pelosi's district as to Kevin McCarthy's.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Primary calendar and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!) on: September 24, 2015, 08:28:03 pm
I would like all state to allocate their delegates proportionally. Winner-take-all seems to be unfair to me, since you can easily have 4 to 6 candidates who have different appeal across a state. If FL would say that the statewide delegates are allocated by WTA and the district delegates are allocated 2x1 (winner gets 2, runner-up gets 1), that would be fairer.

Not sure what the fairest method is but the Republicans need some consistency in their allocation rules, the rules are allover the map. The Democrats system has it's flaws (Super Delegates)  but the basic framework is at least consistent.  Proportional both statewide and by CD, 15% threshold, 1/4 of delegates allocated statewide and 3/4 by CD.  Also the more Democratic CD's get more delegates.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Primary calendar and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!) on: September 24, 2015, 08:16:47 pm
Today, the North Carolina legislature will vote on the conference committee version of the bill that would move the primary to March 15:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/winner-take-all-presidential-primary.html

Looks like the bill would also shift NC's delegate allocation to statewide WTA.


According to FHQ the bill passed both Houses and is on the way to the Governor.

Also to clarify only on the Republicans would be WTA. 
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: $40,000 South Carolina filing fee looms for GOP candidates on: September 23, 2015, 01:52:01 pm
Apparently Arkansas charges $25,000, but it’s the only other state where the fee is $10,000 or more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/22/2016-republican-field-may-be-pared-by-campaign-cos/?page=all


The Kansas GOP has a $15,000 filing fee.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/KS-R

14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Primary calendar and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!) on: September 13, 2015, 07:43:04 pm
Iowa GOP Delegate allocation rules.

https://www.iowagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RPI-Bylaws-Updated-2015.pdf

Quote
ARTICLE VIII – BINDING OF NATIONAL CONVENTION DELEGATES

1. The Iowa delegation to the Republican National Convention shall be bound on the first ballot
to vote proportionally in accordance with the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses. The proportional
delegate allocation shall be rounded to the nearest whole delegate. In the event that a delegate
is unallocated due to mathematical rounding, the unallocated delegate vote shall be cast in favor
of the candidate closest to the rounding threshold. In the event that delegates are over-allocated
due to mathematical rounding, the over-allocated delegate shall be removed from a candidate
based on the rounding threshold. Delegates shall be bound to the candidates in direct proportion
to the candidates’ respective vote shares in the Iowa Caucuses regardless of whether any such
candidate has withdrawn from the race or otherwise does not have his or her name placed in
nomination at the Republican National Convention.

2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this article, if only one candidate’s name is placed in
nomination at the Republican National Convention, all delegates shall be bound to vote for such
candidate on the first ballot provided that the candidate received votes in the Iowa Caucuses.

3. The Chairman of the Iowa delegation, or his or her designee, shall announce the vote of the
delegation in accordance with this Article.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Primary calendar and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!) on: September 07, 2015, 09:56:53 pm

My understanding was that the pre-March 15th states could allocate delegates WTA by CD as long as the at-large delegates were allocated proportionally.  That's the way it worked with the pre-April 1st states in 2012.  Has that changed?


Not 100% positive but I believe the new RNC rules no longer allow WTA even at the CD between March 1 and March 14th.

BTW the 4 carve out states do not have to proportionally allocate their Delegates, South Carolina is WTA by CD and at large.  

FHQ on Proportionality

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/04/republican-proportionality-rules.html
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Primary calendar and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!) on: September 07, 2015, 08:59:52 pm
OK, here is where I’m at on this, re: Republican delegate allocation.  Putting the states in rough categories, from vaguely most WTA to most proportional:

Statewide WTA:
AZ, DE, FL, NJ, DC, maybe NC (only if they successfully move their primary), maybe OH

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are WTA by statewide vote (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
CA, MD, WI

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are proportional by statewide vote (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
MI, VA, VT (lol…there’s only one CD), OH* (might switch to WTA statewide as above)

WTA by congressional district, plus remaining delegates are allocated at a state convention (all CDs get the same # of delegates, regardless of # of Republican votes cast in the district):
IN

Remaining primary states (rules vary from state to state, but the most common situation is some kind of proportionality, but many states do 2 to 1 splits with each CD giving 2 delegates to the winner of that CD, and 1 delegate to the second place finisher in that CD

Loophole primaries (delegates are directly elected in the primary….in the cases of IL and PA, the number of delegates actually varies based on party strength within the district):
IL, PA, and I think WV

Caucus states: In most cases, it’s actually unclear how this is going to work, because the new RNC rules mean that the straw polls taken on caucus day have to determine delegate allocation, and most of these states have never done this before.

You’ll have to go to FHQ’s blog to see which are the caucus states.  Everything else not listed would then be in the “remaining primary states” category.  I didn’t bother looking up the rules for US territories.  If you want to know what they do in Guam, do your own research, suckers.

I did this quickly, so I probably made some mistakes.


Many of these states will have to tweak their rules to get into compliance with the RNC. Example states holding contests between March 1 and March 14th will no longer be able to award any delegates on a WTA basis, even at the Congressional District level so a state such as VA will will have to change their rules.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Primary calendar and delegate allocation megathread (Christmas is saved!) on: September 07, 2015, 08:28:23 pm
If you want to try to compile the Republican delegate rules for each state, go here:

Texas: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/TX-R
The update given in 2014 says that of the state’s 152 delegates, 75% will be allocated based on the results of the primary, while the remaining 25% will be allocated WTA at the state party convention.  But the details of how those 75% will be allocated remain a mystery, because the subsequent explanation on that page explains how it would work if all of the delegates were decided by the outcome of the primary, which is no longer the case.
Reading the actual rules, my interpretation is this:

155 total delegates.  It is 25% of those (38) that are chosen on a WTA basis at the state convention.

108 CD delegates elected based on the primary, 3 per each of the 36 CDs:
(a) Majority: Winner (3).
(b) Leader over 20%: Winner (2), Second (1)
(c) Nobody over 20%: Winner (1), Second (1), Third (1).

This leaves 3 slots for party leaders, and 6 at-large to be elected based on the primary.

It appears that the RPT rules assume that 25% of the delegates don't have to be based on the primary. But I can't find any such provision in the RNC rules.

Texas doesn't like proportional allocation of delegates, but was forced to use them because of an early primary. In 2012, when the primary was delayed until May, there was serious consideration to switching back to WTA.

The RNC rejected the Texas GOP plan to award 25% of the delegates at the convention. All delegates will be allocated by the Primary

http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2014-Rules-as-amended-by-SREC-03.07.15-fixed-cd-06.18.15-with-RNC-Letter-on-Rule-38.pdf

(RNC letter to Texas GOP at the bottom of the PDF).
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Scenario: GOP Improves Slightly With All Demographic Groups in 2016 on: September 07, 2015, 12:06:28 pm
So, blacks should go back to their 57% norm. And the Republican share of the black vote should dramitacally increase. I think Republicans will win at least 15% of the black vote.

And non Hispanic white turnout was 62% in in 2000, 67% in 2000, 66% in 2008 and 64% in 2012.  IMHO it is very unrealistic to expect white turnout make a big jump while minority turnout falls dramatically.  One groups turnout % may move more than another's but they tend to move in the same direction.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If you are supporting a candidate, how supportive of them are you? on: September 06, 2015, 11:34:08 pm
The only thing I am passionate about is voting against the Republican in November.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Democratic Nomination Poll - September 2015 on: September 06, 2015, 11:27:51 pm
Clinton still has about a 95% chance.

I would agree with this. Hillary is far from a perfect candidate but she is not exactly facing Obama caliber competition this time.

FWIW If I ignored electability I would be a Bernie guy but I  am reluctantly supporting Hillary because IMHO she has the best chance to win.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you surprised by how the race is turning out so far on both sides? on: September 06, 2015, 11:17:11 pm
Dems- No. It was never going to be the cakewalk some envisioned for Hillary but she is still a prohibitive favorite.

Rep- Absolutely. I have been wrong about Trump every step of the way. I never thought he would get in, I never thought he would get any traction, and once he did go to the lead in the polls I thought he would fade quickly. I still can't see the Republicans nominating the Donald but what do I know. 
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: John Weaver: A Kasich Army on: September 06, 2015, 11:10:02 pm
sounds like #Kasichmentum

In all seriousness though I still think that it will be Trump because Kasich, Jeb and Rubio will divide the establishment vote.

Depending on how fast field clears he has a shot. IMO who ever ends up being the "not Trump" in a head to head vs the Donald will probably end up getting the nomination.  Kasich has as good a shot as anyone at being that guy.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Lessig make it to the debates? on: September 06, 2015, 11:02:14 pm
The first Democratic debate is the CNN one, and I think the requirement is that you have to get at least 1% in three or more of the national polls from their list of pollsters.  It's unclear that Chafee will make it by those criteria, let alone Lessig.  How many pollsters will even include Lessig?

Unclear what the criteria for the subsequent debates will be though.


Not sure 1% of the public even knows who Lessig is. My guess is he will not be included in any debates.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Scenario: GOP Improves Slightly With All Demographic Groups in 2016 on: September 06, 2015, 10:59:02 pm
Interesting...

Not Really. More like a Republican fantasy.

What the hell? lol.

He said "interesting", not "w0w the pubs are going to replicate that map in 2016!". Take a deep breath and stop busting a nut over anything that would be a good situation for somebody other than the dems.

My point was I don't find extremely unrealistic scenarios to be interesting. Of course if you tweak turnout and vote shares of demographic groups enough you can get your desired result but that does not make it interesting.  I probably should have just skipped this thread like I do most of the other nonsense (Webb vs Jindal, who would win?) . I Just made a smart @ss 7 word reply, hardly busting a nut over this nonsense.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Scenario: GOP Improves Slightly With All Demographic Groups in 2016 on: September 06, 2015, 04:49:21 pm
Interesting...

Not Really. More like a Republican fantasy.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines