|
zoux posted:So does that mean that Voter ID laws don't decrease turnout and I was getting mad for years for nothing It means that they didn't study that question. They studied whether telling voters about voter ID laws would decrease turnout and found out that it had (slightly) the opposite effect.
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:As far as actual policy outcomes Nixon wasn't even close to one of the worst. Do the million dead in SE Asia from unnecessary bombing campaigns count as a policy outcome?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:I really never thought that the GOP would simply knee-jerk react against anything that Obama does. Like, sure, it was funny when they were like "NO BLACK LADY GON TELL ME TO DRANK WATER!" but who the gently caress ever realistically thought that the GOP would actively want to gently caress veterans while looking like they're loving veterans? It's some through-the-looking-glass poo poo. You misunderstand. It's about creating problems that you can convince your rank-and-file voters to blame Obama for, and they have, and are.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Republicans don't need to win every single competitive seat to win the Senate Begich is about as likely to lose as Pryor is. He's consistently ~8 points up.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Do the million dead in SE Asia from unnecessary bombing campaigns count as a policy outcome? Depends. Were they white Americans?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
zoux posted:So does that mean that Voter ID laws don't decrease turnout and I was getting mad for years for nothing This made me curious what the academic literature was on voter IDs and their effects, which led to this interesting article by 538. It's an older article, but at least as of 2012 the consensus was that it suppressed the vote by a small but statistically significant amount. This website linked in the article has a list of studies themselves if you want to read them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Begich is about as likely to lose as Pryor is. He's consistently ~8 points up. Alaska polling is weird though. Landrieu's numbers in LA look fairly stable so I'd probably rank her seat higher in the hold probability than Alaska. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:17 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
I'd say Pryor, Landrieu, and Begich are the most likely to eke out a win come November. Hagan is a complete tossup. The rest, I'm pretty sure, are toast.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
lmao, John Bolton has some lovely sponsored Tweet about how Barack Obama is the worst President on foreign policy EVER How is John Bolton not entirely discredited? Shouldn't he be hanging out with Ollie North and Dick Morris and poo poo, just collecting a paycheck from whoever's stupid enough to write it? Like, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of foreign policy with this administration, but no, let's go straight to "worst ever" and ignore the administration in which Bolton demonstrated he was a huge moron
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:I'd say Pryor, Landrieu, and Begich are the most likely to eke out a win come November. Hagan is a complete tossup. The rest, I'm pretty sure, are toast. RCP's average is really annoying because I don't think its accurate at this point. The only people generally polling these races are places like PPP and Magellan Strategies which are partisan pollsters. The NYTimes model rates MI at 82% to hold for Dems, Iowa at 81% to hold for Dems, AR at 66% to hold for Dems, CO at 61% to hold for Dems, NC at 52% to hold for Dems, AK at 50% to hold for Dems, GA at 46% to flip to Dems, and LA at 41% to hold for Dems. To hold the senate at 50-50 they need to win 5 of these. So maybe I'm totally wrong about LA since a GA flip is rated more likely than an LA hold. They also have a KY flip rated at 15%. We may never know what rhymes with Alison Lundergan Grimes at a federal level.  The overall model says there's a 61% chance for the Dems to hold the Senate. I'm guessing its due to GA suddenly turning competitive. However, I don't know how Bayesian the NYTimes model is. Silver's model I believe accounts for a Bayesian change in probability. That is, in the scenario where the Dems somehow win KY they've also probably won the rest. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:26 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
TGLT posted:This made me curious what the academic literature was on voter IDs and their effects, which led to this interesting article by 538. It's an older article, but at least as of 2012 the consensus was that it suppressed the vote by a small but statistically significant amount. This website linked in the article has a list of studies themselves if you want to read them. My sense has always been that Voter ID laws weren't going to suppress turnout nearly as much as Democrats feared or Republicans hoped. Generally because people who didn't have IDs probably weren't voting in the first place. My opposition to it was always on principle and also that it was clearly motivated by a GOP desire to suppress turnout and that they were blatantly lying about it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Begich is about as likely to lose as Pryor is. He's consistently ~8 points up. This is before the primary when Republicans have one candidate to truly solidify around. All of the polls show a large number of undecideds. Begich originally won by a point in a D wave year against a candidate who had been found guilty of felony corruption. It may be leaning towards Begich but it's not a safe bet.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:This is before the primary when Republicans have one candidate to truly solidify around. All of the polls show a large number of undecideds. Begich originally won by a point in a D wave year against a candidate who had been found guilty of felony corruption. It may be leaning towards Begich but it's not a safe bet. Begich beat Ted Stevens by like 1.5 points, when all the pre-election polls had him up by double digits. I'm not sure if Alaska polling was weird because nobody wanted to say they were backing the obviously corrupt guy, or if there was an issue with sampling, or what, but I would not at all be surprised if AK polls were completely off again this year and Begich gets crushed.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Dystram posted:You misunderstand. It's about creating problems that you can convince your rank-and-file voters to blame Obama for, and they have, and are. I didn't think about it like that, and that makes sense. I guess what doesn't make sense to me is that they're doing such a terrible job of shielding themselves from criticism, if not responsibility. Like, by having the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs openly making GBS threads on veterans organizations, and basically giving them the same unpopular "privatization and personal responsibility" rhetoric that they give everyone else. I don't know, it just seems odd. Then again, it's not a secret that the GOP is entirely unmoored.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Begich beat Ted Stevens by like 1.5 points, when all the pre-election polls had him up by double digits. I remember hearing that Alaska is notoriously hard to poll because of how isolated some of the areas area. Imagine the typical cell phone sampling problem we see but magnified because it's a small population state with a good portion that's generally unreachable. As a result the polling variance from the true population is much larger than in other states. I believe in 2010 the polling indicated that Joe Miller would beat Murkowski by as much as 7 points but Murkowski won by 4. However there were polls putting her up by as much as 10 points. A 17 point spread between the two outliers is enormous. RCP removes its average once the final result is in but I'm guessing it would've been Miller +3 or so. That's 7 points off the final result which is one of the worst polling errors I've ever seen. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:36 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
zoux posted:My sense has always been that Voter ID laws weren't going to suppress turnout nearly as much as Democrats feared or Republicans hoped. Generally because people who didn't have IDs probably weren't voting in the first place. My opposition to it was always on principle and also that it was clearly motivated by a GOP desire to suppress turnout and that they were blatantly lying about it. Nate Silver arrives at something like ~2% change in voter turnout, with every percent change in voter turnout corresponding with ~.5% swing in the direction of republicans. This Cambridge polisci article agrees with the sentiment that it's just racist partisan poo poo as well. Basically the more minorities and poor people vote, the more likely Republicans will propose voter ID laws so yeah, it's super loving transparent what they're really worried about. On the upside, just talking about elections can sometimes get people to vote. I haven't read Joementum's article, but I'd guess that is its conclusion. If you mention a thing it stays fresh in people's minds and they're more likely to do the thing than they were before.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Looks like Florida's redistricting mess is finally making it to the Supreme Court. Sort of. Will the justices find it in their heart to rule that you can't compel a company to provide evidence that may hurt their bottom line?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Looks like Florida's redistricting mess is finally making it to the Supreme Court. Sort of. 3rd comment, wow: quote:Interesting to see how Republicans ditch states rights and state sovereignty when it is about them. Now they want the Federal Supreme Court to overrule the State's Supreme Court. Big goverement is only good when it works for them if it works for anyone else then its a waste.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I think if you showed the founding fathers internet commenting they'd have nipped this whole representational democracy thing in the bud.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I agree that college should be about exposing you to diverse viewpoints including unpopular ones and ones with which you disagree but the commencement speech seems to be literally the worst possible venue for doing that. You're all done with school, you're going out into the real world and they're giving you advise. Shouldn't they choose someone the students would actually like instead of forcing them to listen to some rear end in a top hat that they hate for half an hour? I also wonder what the hell the point of a school paying a 5- or 6-figure sum to get some famous person to give a speech to outgoing students is, regardless of the speaker's political or ideological inclinations. If my college has an extra hundred grand kicking around I'd want it to go to something to actually benefit the students, even if I'm graduating and not going to benefit directly. It's not like the ceremony won't have enough speeches and pomp already, and at least those will be from people who, you know, are actually involved in the school in some way.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Haven't you ever heard of a little thing called "prestige"?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:My commencement speaker in 2005 was Alberto Gonzalez. His speech boiled down to how hard it was to get where he was due to being Hispanic, and how great of a president George W. Bush and wasn't it great that we were bringing freedom and democracy to those savages in the Middle East?? I'm amazed he could even recall enough of the speech to give it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I also wonder what the hell the point of a school paying a 5- or 6-figure sum to get some famous person to give a speech to outgoing students is, regardless of the speaker's political or ideological inclinations. Schools don't pay for someone famous to talk to graduates, they pay for someone famous to appear behind a podium on a campus stage for use in PR materials.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm amazed he could even recall enough of the speech to give it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
God drat it would be nice to see McConnell go down to Grimes. The dude has always been a worthless toolbag but his shameless prevaricating and goalpost-moving on Obamacare lately has really been superb.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Bunleigh posted:God drat it would be nice to see McConnell go down to Grimes. The dude has always been a worthless toolbag but his shameless prevaricating and goalpost-moving on Obamacare lately has really been superb. It's possible.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Bunleigh posted:God drat it would be nice to see McConnell go down to Grimes. The dude has always been a worthless toolbag but his shameless prevaricating and goalpost-moving on Obamacare lately has really been superb. I love his "get rid of Obamacare for everyone else but keep it for Kentucky" plan.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Begich is about as likely to lose as Pryor is. He's consistently ~8 points up. The real reason Begich is probably safe is 1. Alaska likes its political dynasties. and 2. Alaska likes incumbents. More than any other state, Alaska would be a really, really good investment for Democrats looking to make sure Dems keep the Senate. It would especially be a good investment in terms of volunteer organizing. Even though it's expensive to visit all those little communities, the pay off is probably worth it given the small voter pool.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Needs the crosstabs on people who have "what rhymes" stuck in their head.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:Needs the crosstabs on people who have "what rhymes" stuck in their head. Also correlated with the percentage of people who see old man dick and balls in their heads when they hear the words "Mitch McConnell".
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Dems now projected at 61% to keep the senate This is why I always held off until the primaries were done to start hand wringing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Au contrare mon frere. This has not gone unnoticed.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:Needs the crosstabs on people who have "what rhymes" stuck in their head. More pollsters definitely need to throw in PPP-style joke questions.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
zoux posted:Au contrare mon frere. Clearly when Nate publishes his model on 538 we'll be able to settle the dispute. Or he'll pull a PPP and stick his in between the two  edit: More seriously, the difference is due to how the models are made. WaPo's model is entirely based on fundamentals, things like PVI, presidential approval ratings, incumbency, etc). It has absolutely no polling information in it. The NYTimes model relies much more heavily on polling. I don't think entirely discounting summer polls or only counting polls this early out are really useful ways to do it. I believe Nate Silver's model actually calibrates based on how much is known about polling quality and moves more and more towards polling as we approach election day, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it put the odds at somewhere around 50-50. Basically, read the Vox article. axeil fucked around with this message at 18:50 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Dems now projected at 61% to keep the senate Not empty quoting here, I knew the doomsday bullshit was exactly that, bullshit because at least a few of the half way electable republicans were going to get primaried
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Dems now projected at 61% to keep the senate We're still not done in GA though! I imagine that race will move away from Nunn once the GOP runoff is done.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:Not empty quoting here, I knew the doomsday bullshit was exactly that, bullshit because at least a few of the half way electable republicans were going to get primaried Even if that figure sticks, that's a 39% chance of losing it--which is only slightly better than a coin flip. And there's six months and hundreds of millions of kochdollars to go before the election. It's not over yet by a long shot.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:Not empty quoting here, I knew the doomsday bullshit was exactly that, bullshit because at least a few of the half way electable republicans were going to get primaried I don't think the current data available to us strongly indicates one outcome over another.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Even if that figure sticks, that's a 39% chance of losing it--which is only slightly better than a coin flip. And there's six months and hundreds of millions of kochdollars to go before the election. It's not over yet by a long shot. There's also six months of enough feet in mouth to make the biggest foot kink blush. My advice is to save up for a torrent of booze around Labor Day.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:There's also six months of enough feet in mouth to make the biggest foot kink blush. But they had workshops! And consultants! Surely they'll be able to stay on message this time... There will probably be a few eye-opening gaffes between now and November. But it remains to be seen if they'll be in the states that matter. In any case, nine-figure third-party cash is a guaranteed given. Embarrassing statements are not.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:06
|
|