Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 23, 2019, 06:12:18 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: TJ in Oregon, Virginiá)
| | |-+  NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: NJ: Academics and Model-makers on Hillary Clinton's chances  (Read 5252 times)
bobloblaw
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,039
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2015, 06:12:09 pm »

Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

Yes, old white people are the most politically engaged, which is why FOX & Limbaugh are as popular as they are. This isn't opinion, go look at FOX's demographics. You guys sure are getting obnoxious about an election in which 33% voted. If you want to claim the majority of the electorate, that would still be blatantly false but go right ahead. But don't try to claim the "entire country" is Republican.

Engaged -- sure. But they are also disinformed and manipulated. They are old, and they are dying off. They are not influencing younger voters who may be more interested in relief from student loans than in "gun rights".

Barack Obama built a far-sturdier and far-more-successful coalition than Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. His electoral apparatus has gone lock, stock, and barrel to Hillary Clinton... and that is how things start.



One of the great follies the left engages in is in thinking that how people vote when they are young is how they will vote all their lives.

They point out how conservative older voters re, but they miss the fact that these older voters were JFK supporters, voted LBJ by greater than the national popular margin and were Nixon's weakest demographic in 1972.

The left is EXTREMELY wedded to the idea of a permanent majority caused by demographics because the left fundamentally doesnt like elections. They years for a one party progressive state that creates a utopia. Where the one party isnt defeated by recession, corruption or foreign policy issues. The left's ideal looks a lot like Mexico under the PRI from 1929-2000 or Post 1994 South Africa.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,875
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2015, 06:39:48 pm »

With only 17 Presidential elections since 1948 that's just not a strong sample size. Even in the history of the country there's only been 57 elections. Every single data point should be looked at, even the late 1800s. Particularly as it was a period of polarization similar to today.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2015, 11:20:10 pm »

President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

Every single ONE of those models picked Obama to win, even when Obama was polling poorly

This model was widely touted by the right wing blogosphere during 2012. Don't try to rewrite history.

Quote
An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university#sthash.Yd7lxnQp.dpuf
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 467


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2015, 01:00:51 am »

- 'Keys to the Whitehouse' model (also based on fundamentals)

Uh...by my count, the Dems are only one key away from defeat.

According to the author of the 'keys' model, she is two away (as of last summer)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

He wrote that before the midterm elections. Key 1 has fallen, albeit just barely.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2015, 11:33:42 am »

Why does every Democrat cheer the polls 20 months before the election that are showing Hillary ahead by 10-16 points?

Dude, it's because she is all the Democrats have left.

The entire country is pretty much Republican. The most watched news network is Fox. The most listened to talk radio show is Rush Limbaugh. There are 50 Governors, only 18 of them are Democrats. The Republicans just gained more seats in the House and Senate than they have had in decades. They have a huge white voter problem, so they try and spin that Hillary will win white guys in Arkansas.

It's all a pipe dream. I honestly think the Obama coalition is running the risk of becoming the rainbow coalition. If you like that, ask President Mondale and President Dukakis how well they enjoyed it.

Yes, old white people are the most politically engaged, which is why FOX & Limbaugh are as popular as they are. This isn't opinion, go look at FOX's demographics. You guys sure are getting obnoxious about an election in which 33% voted. If you want to claim the majority of the electorate, that would still be blatantly false but go right ahead. But don't try to claim the "entire country" is Republican.

Engaged -- sure. But they are also disinformed and manipulated. They are old, and they are dying off. They are not influencing younger voters who may be more interested in relief from student loans than in "gun rights".

Barack Obama built a far-sturdier and far-more-successful coalition than Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. His electoral apparatus has gone lock, stock, and barrel to Hillary Clinton... and that is how things start.



One of the great follies the left engages in is in thinking that how people vote when they are young is how they will vote all their lives.

They point out how conservative older voters re, but they miss the fact that these older voters were JFK supporters, voted LBJ by greater than the national popular margin and were Nixon's weakest demographic in 1972.

The left is EXTREMELY wedded to the idea of a permanent majority caused by demographics because the left fundamentally doesnt like elections. They years for a one party progressive state that creates a utopia. Where the one party isnt defeated by recession, corruption or foreign policy issues. The left's ideal looks a lot like Mexico under the PRI from 1929-2000 or Post 1994 South Africa.
Romney also won voters 18-20.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/10/democrats-have-a-young-people-problem-too/

Quote
If we zero in even further on the youngest of the millennials in these polls — those who turned 18 during Obama’s first term — the potential challenges for Democrats become even clearer. Among self-reported voters who were 18 years old in 2012, Mitt Romney, not Obama, won the majority: 57 percent.  Romney also won 59 percent among 19-year-olds, and 54 percent among 20-year-olds.  These youngest voters of 2012 had entered the electorate in 2010-2012, when Obama’s popularity was much lower than the high point of his inauguration.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,021
Latvia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2015, 12:26:41 pm »

- 'Keys to the Whitehouse' model (also based on fundamentals)

Uh...by my count, the Dems are only one key away from defeat.

According to the author of the 'keys' model, she is two away (as of last summer)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

He wrote that before the midterm elections. Key 1 has fallen, albeit just barely.

Does the current state of Libya, Syria, and Iraq not qualify as losing the tenth Key as well?
Logged
Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,020


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2015, 03:17:26 pm »

President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

^This. Also, never doubt the chances that the Republican candidate, probably Jeb or Walker at this point (more so Walker) will end up pushing social issues or generally gaffing it up right until November. Add in the fact that the GOP owns both houses in Congress and it makes oppo far easier for Hillary's team: just ran against the do-nothing regressivists and tie their candidate to D.C.

And don't neglect that even if the nominee or vp nominee don't gaffe it up, some Republican somewhere will make an incredibly offensive statement regarding women, which the party will then refuse to clearly condemn.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2015, 04:13:05 pm »

President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

^This. Also, never doubt the chances that the Republican candidate, probably Jeb or Walker at this point (more so Walker) will end up pushing social issues or generally gaffing it up right until November. Add in the fact that the GOP owns both houses in Congress and it makes oppo far easier for Hillary's team: just ran against the do-nothing regressivists and tie their candidate to D.C.

And don't neglect that even if the nominee or vp nominee don't gaffe it up, some Republican somewhere will make an incredibly offensive statement regarding women, which the party will then refuse to clearly condemn.
They managed to avoid this in the 2014 cycle.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,875
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2015, 08:28:03 pm »

Romney did not win voters 18-20, that survey was flawed. You can't reconcile that with the exit poll.
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#exitPoll

Unless Obama won 80% of 22-24 voters there is zero chance Romney won voters in the age 18-20 range.
Logged
Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,020


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2015, 01:32:55 pm »

President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

^This. Also, never doubt the chances that the Republican candidate, probably Jeb or Walker at this point (more so Walker) will end up pushing social issues or generally gaffing it up right until November. Add in the fact that the GOP owns both houses in Congress and it makes oppo far easier for Hillary's team: just ran against the do-nothing regressivists and tie their candidate to D.C.

And don't neglect that even if the nominee or vp nominee don't gaffe it up, some Republican somewhere will make an incredibly offensive statement regarding women, which the party will then refuse to clearly condemn.
They managed to avoid this in the 2014 cycle.

No, they didn't.
http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/


Logged
bobloblaw
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,039
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2015, 02:01:57 pm »

President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

Every single ONE of those models picked Obama to win, even when Obama was polling poorly

This model was widely touted by the right wing blogosphere during 2012. Don't try to rewrite history.

Quote
An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university#sthash.Yd7lxnQp.dpuf

The Time For A Change model predicted an Obama win
Logged
bobloblaw
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,039
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 20, 2015, 02:04:55 pm »

President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

^This. Also, never doubt the chances that the Republican candidate, probably Jeb or Walker at this point (more so Walker) will end up pushing social issues or generally gaffing it up right until November. Add in the fact that the GOP owns both houses in Congress and it makes oppo far easier for Hillary's team: just ran against the do-nothing regressivists and tie their candidate to D.C.

And don't neglect that even if the nominee or vp nominee don't gaffe it up, some Republican somewhere will make an incredibly offensive statement regarding women, which the party will then refuse to clearly condemn.

It seems the left's entire strategy is hope the GOP gaffes and demographics will deliver a win.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2015, 03:23:39 pm »

President Romney is sure glad the "models" were correct in 2012.

Every single ONE of those models picked Obama to win, even when Obama was polling poorly

This model was widely touted by the right wing blogosphere during 2012. Don't try to rewrite history.

Quote
An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university#sthash.Yd7lxnQp.dpuf

The Time For A Change model predicted an Obama win

Yes, that's the point. Models ran the gamut from an Obama landslide to a Romney landslide.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,875
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 20, 2015, 05:16:29 pm »

Typical Republican: "The White House isn't won by a party three times in a row so we can run out someone from the same family as the guy who left the WH with 25% approval 8 years ago."

Good luck trying to explain that to workers in Ohio.
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 467


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2015, 08:57:44 am »

- 'Keys to the Whitehouse' model (also based on fundamentals)

Uh...by my count, the Dems are only one key away from defeat.

According to the author of the 'keys' model, she is two away (as of last summer)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

He wrote that before the midterm elections. Key 1 has fallen, albeit just barely.

Does the current state of Libya, Syria, and Iraq not qualify as losing the tenth Key as well?

It's a close call...it takes something dramatic to turn Key 10. I don't think any of those events BY THEMSELVES  count, but combined they might. I'll just say it's a key in play for now.
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,952
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2015, 11:15:51 am »

National Journal has a piece on political scientists skeptical of Hillary Clinton's chances of being the next President.

Quote
In 2012, for example, most strategists think Obama won because he ran one of the best presidential campaigns in American history while Mitt Romney ran one of the worst. According to political scientists, however, Obama's victory was a product of favorable conditions, such as an improving economy, decent approval ratings, and his incumbency. The unemployment rate was high, yes, but the state of the economy matters little compared with the direction it's headed.


Really? "Most" experts believe these two things? That's news to me...
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2015, 11:21:49 am »

National Journal has a piece on political scientists skeptical of Hillary Clinton's chances of being the next President.

Quote
In 2012, for example, most strategists think Obama won because he ran one of the best presidential campaigns in American history while Mitt Romney ran one of the worst. According to political scientists, however, Obama's victory was a product of favorable conditions, such as an improving economy, decent approval ratings, and his incumbency. The unemployment rate was high, yes, but the state of the economy matters little compared with the direction it's headed.


Really? "Most" experts believe these two things? That's news to me...
He referred to strategists, not necessarily all experts.

Strategists are the subgroup of experts most likely to exaggerate the significance of campaigning.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,482
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2015, 11:02:55 am »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lJ3tfQFpc

Strategists are the subgroup of experts most likely to exaggerate the significance of campaigning.

Republican strategists who ran SuperPACs that blew all their donors money looking save their hide believe this, not strategists in general.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 11:04:28 am by Monarch »Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,482
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2015, 11:11:40 am »

Look, the Democratic advantage with youth won't last forever. It will eventually become the party of Mom and Dad, and the Republicans will win youth. This is what the 1980s were vs. New Deal.

But it takes actual work.

For claiming to be against entitlements, a lot of Republicans here are thinking they are entitled to winning 2016 and youth voters now because it's their turn. No. You have it earn these new voters. It's the truth and it is possible but it's not going to happen without making fundamental changes.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines