Bush, Clinton don't fare well in focus group
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:22:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Bush, Clinton don't fare well in focus group
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Bush, Clinton don't fare well in focus group  (Read 2123 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 11, 2015, 11:06:10 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-signal-of-distaste-for-dynasties-bodes-ill-for-bush-clinton/2015/01/10/079258f2-98d3-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2015, 11:11:44 AM »

Because the opinions of 12 random people exactly correlates to the 2016 electorate.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2015, 11:12:16 AM »

So it seems the media has finally given up on trying to find weakness for Hillary in actual scientific polls, so they're resorting to 12 person focus groups instead?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well said!
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2015, 11:19:21 AM »

But don't you think it's weird that the focus group reactions to Clinton line up well with the reactions to her seen online? There's definitely something going on there. She's unlikeable.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2015, 11:27:49 AM »

But don't you think it's weird that the focus group reactions to Clinton line up well with the reactions to her seen online? There's definitely something going on there. She's unlikeable.

I tend to put more weight in scientific evidence. Both internet commenters and this focus group are clearly unrepresentative of the general population. Not that polls are perfect, but they're far more representative of the general population than anecdotal evidence is.

Interestingly, it seems this focus group took place in CO, the state which tends to be least friendly to both Hillary and Jeb in the polls.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,623
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2015, 11:30:39 AM »

But don't you think it's weird that the focus group reactions to Clinton line up well with the reactions to her seen online? There's definitely something going on there. She's unlikeable.

Virtually all polls show Clinton to be much more likable and popular that any of the Republican hopefuls.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2015, 11:40:15 AM »

But don't you think it's weird that the focus group reactions to Clinton line up well with the reactions to her seen online? There's definitely something going on there. She's unlikeable.
Every scientifically conducted poll has shown that Clinton has overwhelming support from Democrats.  Heck, according Gallup, 1 in 5 Democrats name Hillary as their most admired woman in an open ended question.  In other words, more Democrats admire Clinton above any other woman than would vote for Warren in the primary.  Not to mention, she's held the title of Most Admired Woman for 17 of the last 18 years.

Clinton leads every primary poll with 60% or more of the vote.  If voters really are that fed up with political dynasties and don't want to see Clinton as president, this wouldn't happen.  Those arguments about people saying they're voting for Clinton because they think she'll win are poor excuses.  People don't vote for candidates they don't like.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2015, 02:17:29 PM »

I'm kind of surprised by the Bush responses but not Clinton's. As we saw in 2008 she's still a paper tiger and the false aura of inevitability can only do so much.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2015, 02:26:02 PM »

Sure, people will name her favorably, but whenever anyone is asked to actually talk about her, she is loathed with a seething hatred. Her political career is over.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2015, 04:41:17 PM »
« Edited: January 11, 2015, 04:44:29 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

I don't know anyone who is enthusiastic about the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency but I know many people who like her somewhat, the results of this focus group align quite closely with that.

Beet, outside of Republicans and the Atlas, I don't know anyone who "loathes [Hillary Clinton] with a seething hatred". That's ridiculous hyperbole akin to your sage analysis of the 2012 Presidential election in 2009 when you claimed that Sarah Palin could be elected over Obama or when you predicted imminent economic doom. As usual, you're prone to delusional despair that favors reading crumbs of data gleamed from comment threads rather than scientific analysis. For what it's worth, I agree that Hillary Clinton is an overrated candidate and that she has a number of weaknesses. This does not mean that "her political career is over".
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2015, 01:25:46 PM »

Quite a lot of people will be extremely unenthusiastic about a Bush vs. Clinton match where this country doesn't try to hide it's love of nepotism over competence.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2015, 01:47:52 PM »

If 2016 is Bush v. Clinton, I will refuse to follow it.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2015, 04:32:31 PM »

One thing here resonates with me. My father and stepmother are both Republican voters who dislike Obama and Clinton. And although they are both far from working class or even lower middle class, unexpectedly, they both told me they like Elizabeth Warren.
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2015, 04:35:56 PM »

One thing here resonates with me. My father and stepmother are both Republican voters who dislike Obama and Clinton. And although they are both far from working class or even lower middle class, unexpectedly, they both told me they like Elizabeth Warren.

Similar case with my parents -- although my dad has warmed up to Obama post-midterms.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2015, 05:23:16 PM »

My parents are pretty stereotypical Democrats and they don't care about Hillary Clinton. They love Elizabeth Warren.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2015, 06:28:27 PM »

Beet, outside of Republicans and the Atlas, I don't know anyone who "loathes [Hillary Clinton] with a seething hatred". That's ridiculous hyperbole akin to your sage analysis of the 2012 Presidential election in 2009 when you claimed that Sarah Palin could be elected over Obama or when you predicted imminent economic doom. As usual, you're prone to delusional despair that favors reading crumbs of data gleamed from comment threads rather than scientific analysis. For what it's worth, I agree that Hillary Clinton is an overrated candidate and that she has a number of weaknesses. This does not mean that "her political career is over".

You guys always cite my bad predictions, but I would say my analysis is pretty underrated on the forum. Hear me out.

Firstly, even as late as the first half of 2009, it hadn't sunk in for most people how much trouble the economy was in. So me being more negative than the consensus on the economy back then was leaning in the right direction, even if not all my literal comments were right. When I thought Palin was going to win the GOP nod, she was trading at about 20% on Intrade to do so. I was wrong about a longshot prediction- hardly surprising. Longshot predictions are expected to be wrong - a person who is only right 50% of the time, but only makes longshot predictions that consensus gives a 20% chance to be true, is still a great predictor, because they are 1.5 times better than the consensus (the same applies for my thinking Ron Paul had a realistic shot at the GOP nod).

Now let's see some of my right predictions since 2008.
(1) In November 2008, I predicted populism's emergence as a major issue. Also predicted that Obama would not be able to  be a vehicle for it (he hasn't). This essay foreshadowed everything from the rise of the Tea Party to OWS to Larry Summers' fall from grace, to the rise of Elizabeth Warren and many progressives' biggest disappointments with Obama. I wrote this just days after his initial election, when virtually everyone was basking in his glow and hardly anyone was thinking about storm clouds. So it was a far out, longshot prediction. Except for one comment from Sam Spade, it was largely ignored.

Note that the insight for this prediction was gleaned largely from looking at comments in online news stories.

(2) In this thread when only 22% of people thought the Republicans would gain more than 45 seats in the House in 2010, I said the Democrats would lose between 65 and 70 seats. My loss estimates were a bit high, but they were very close to the ultimate +63 seat pickup by the House GOP that year. Looking back, I was actually too optimistic because I expected the economy to pick up more between late 2009 and late 2010, hence why I said "if the election were held today."

(3) In early April 2010 I said, "I don't think most people realize how serious the situation is there" (in bold) about the Greek crisis. At the time, Greece was just starting to reach the headlines of financial papers. Given that it is nearly 5 years later and we are still dealing with it (see the election coming up later this month with SYRIZA in the lead) I would say that was fairly clairvoyant. Incidentally,  here is me, in early July 2010 saying that austerity wouldn't work and arguing for ECB monetary easing. Nearly five years later, the ECB has come around to that position.

(4) Here's a good illustrative example from April 2013 on the value of online comments. At the time, Quinn was leading her nearest opponent by a 2-1 margin in the polls, with or without Weiner in the race. The intensity of the opposition to her on a local newspaper's comments section was strong enough to overcome the poll, however. I was able to predict she would lose the mayoral election. A couple of comments down is a good explanation by me of why I look at online comments.

(5) I first posted about Ebola on June 16, 2014. At that time, it was only a small, local story, local meaning you would only see if it if you were looking for West African news, or in the corners of the the International section of large news aggregators. For months I raised the profile of this story, until it became headline news in the United States. In early October 2014, when I posted a domestic U.S. thread about Ebola, I was roundly mocked by many posters. The kindest poster was Ernest, who simply said that he didn't think the thread would be necessary. Just days later, the first U.S. transmission of Ebola was confirmed, and the thread developed into 5+ pages (without me responding), with the last post in December. That was when TIME declared Ebola the story of the year. I also saw, in late October, when the exponential phase of Ebola growth was coming to an end, particularly in Liberia. At that stage, very few people were willing to believe that the situation in Liberia was about to improve (they said it was just a matter of reporting breaking down).

All of these five prediction areas were longshot predictions which I was right about. They all involved deviations from conventional wisdom, the majority view, a poll, the opinion of an official, the informal judgement of which stories are important, etc. and I was right and more mainstream view was wrong.

And yet I still have a reputation here of being some sort of unrealistic pessimist, not getting credit for a decent score of correct longshot predictions (and a few wrong longshot predictions, to be sure). But someone making random longshot predictions with no skill would have a far worse record than I, and I think it would be fitting if I received some accolades.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2015, 04:02:37 PM »

So it seems the media has finally given up on trying to find weakness for Hillary in actual scientific polls, so they're resorting to 12 person focus groups instead?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well said!

Anyone who thinks Hillary is a good candidate or the country is crying out for her is mistaken
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2015, 04:09:01 PM »

So it seems the media has finally given up on trying to find weakness for Hillary in actual scientific polls, so they're resorting to 12 person focus groups instead?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well said!

Anyone who thinks Hillary is a good candidate or the country is crying out for her is mistaken

I agree, she's not a good candidate, she's a great candidate. And the country doesn't need to "cry out for her", she just needs to be good enough to beat whatever joke the GOP puts up.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 13 queries.