|
Zwabu posted:It's explained since your post but it bears emphasis: Post Convention Bump is a really well known and consistent phenomenon, and an old one. The exact same thing happened with the Ferraro announcement, there was a significant post convention bounce from the DNC and Ferraro buzz that brought the Mondale ticket tied or even slightly in the lead in some polls but was a transient phenomenon and not a true reflection of the state of the race.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
g0del posted:The obvious thing to do is to have the convention one week before the general election. Put that transient bounce to real use. They probably would, except that campaign finance rules mean you might run out of money because you can only spend primary money until the convention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They probably would, except that campaign finance rules mean you might run out of money because you can only spend primary money until the convention. have two conventions
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:have two conventions Vince McMahon presents: XDNC
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
A big part of the convention bump is that the opposition goes dark that week since it knows that it can't compete on media. That's why the numbers re-align once the convention is over: the other candidate comes back and provides a contrast. Moving the dates of the conventions around won't do much unless they both decide to hold the convention at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:I don't think Sanders' goal is to win, it's to see what he can do to drive the winner to the left. Obviously that might affect the race for the nomination but isn't there some kind (at least partial) reset before the general election, where nominees distance themselves from their core supporters to appeal to the undecided centre ground? So how much the left-wing garnish on Hilary's campaign will be left by the time the general election takes place? Not much I suspect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:How is the answer to this anything but Lyndon Johnson? With the amount of women he got into bed? He's got to have something going for him. The job and Jumbo wouldn't account for all of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Would Christie be the fattest President since William Howard Taft? Abraham Lincoln, by his own admission. Sources say that he had a kind of animated craggy charisma despite that, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Abraham Lincoln, by his own admission. Sources say that he had a kind of animated craggy charisma despite that, though. Lincoln had one hell of a high-pitch voice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Abraham Lincoln, by his own admission. Sources say that he had a kind of animated craggy charisma despite that, though. Lincoln overcame his awkward boobery largely by his ability to be really charming and personable, in particularly by having an uncanny instinct about how to craft folksy anecdotes specific to whomever he was trying to win over and/or confound.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Lincoln had one hell of a high-pitch voice. Supposedly Spielberg & DDL got it fairly accurate from what historians have found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uREttlxHBjg
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Hahaha ol' dubya gave an interview to Crowley and said Hilary was like a sister-in-law to him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Potential 2016 rivals met tonight (with Ned Lamont looking on).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hahaha ol' dubya gave an interview to Crowley and said Hilary was like a sister-in-law to him. Link us up!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Link us up! quote:But when asked whether his brother, former Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, could run against his sister-in-law, the 43rd president said: "Yeah, and I think he'd beat her." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Given how low-profile he is it's kind of weird to hear about him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
That was really... weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Potential 2016 rivals met tonight (with Ned Lamont looking on). admit it, you think Clinton would pick Sanders just like Clinton 1 wound up with Gore You realize it'll give us 8 years of Bush after, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:admit it, you think Clinton would pick Sanders just like Clinton 1 wound up with Gore I'll play along, even though you're not being serious. 1. The Vice Presidential pick doesn't matter at all in terms of votes received in the general election. 2. Clinton is going to pick a boring white guy like Mark Warner as her running mate. If she was going to pick a VT politician, she'd be about a million times more likely to pick Howard Dean than Bernie Sanders and she's not going to pick Howard Dean (though it would not be a bad choice for her).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I'll play along, even though you're not being serious. 1. Veep pick is about money. If enough folks are trying to goad Clinton into picking Warren, she may see the value in a symbolic, white-bread progressive pick. 2. I'm not sure about Warner. She's not going to pick anyone who'd get more of a spotlight than her, nor will she pick a woman. I can't see what donors Warner would bring that Clinton can't already get. Frankly, Clinton has a Hollywood problem and needs someone with bi-coastal appeal. Someone who either has their own network, or someone who she can put in front of LA and rake in their cash while she focuses on her traditional monetary base. Or so I expect the logic of her next campaign director to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
ah yes, the calculated Clinton move to tap Big Money Warren for that sweet campaign cash I agree that Clinton's VP will be from the lower Midwest or from west of I-35, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:1. Veep pick is about money. If enough folks are trying to goad Clinton into picking Warren, she may see the value in a symbolic, white-bread progressive pick. Veep pick was about money for Romney in 2012. Not really about money for any one else. Mostly about covering perceived deficiencies, whether it be experience, gravitas, regional, melanin, or chromosonal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I'll play along, even though you're not being serious. Not that it matters a bit, but isn't Dean likely on the Clinton blacklist for his opposition to the DLC in 2004 and his backing of Obama early on in the 2008 primary?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Not that it matters a bit, but isn't Dean likely on the Clinton blacklist for his opposition to the DLC in 2004 and his backing of Obama early on in the 2008 primary? If the Clintons are going to keep holding a grudge against anyone who backed Obama in '08, that's going to be a mighty long shitlist. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Not that that is outside the realm of possibility, considering Mark Penn and all...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Not that it matters a bit, but isn't Dean likely on the Clinton blacklist for his opposition to the DLC in 2004 and his backing of Obama early on in the 2008 primary? I have every confidence the Clintons' lust for power will overcome any bad blood if Dean is even marginally useful. (See: State, secretary of)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:I have every confidence the Clintons' lust for power will overcome any bad blood if Dean is even marginally useful. (See: State, secretary of) I have a hard time deciding whether their lust for power is more potent than their capacity for grudge-holding/score-evening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
richardfun posted:If the Clintons are going to keep holding a grudge against anyone who backed Obama in '08, that's going to be a mighty long shitlist. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. The Clintons have an Excel file documenting everybody who wrong them in 2008, with the scale of their betrayal rated on a seven point scale. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are 7s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The Clintons have an Excel file documenting everybody who wrong them in 2008, with the scale of their betrayal rated on a seven point scale. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are 7s. ...and Christopher Hitchens is an 8.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:...and Bill Richardson is an 8. Fixed that for you.  Still my favorite campaign photo of all time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I have a hard time deciding whether their lust for power is more potent than their capacity for grudge-holding/score-evening. Which was being served when Bill Clinton gave the speech of 2012 in favor of Barack Obama?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Which was being served when Bill Clinton gave the speech of 2012 in favor of Barack Obama? Doing what's expected of the 2016 candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
richardfun posted:If the Clintons are going to keep holding a grudge against anyone who backed Obama in '08, that's going to be a mighty long shitlist. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. You're thinking about it wrong. The VP spot is incredibly valuable: you get national exposure and a massive boost to your own planned Presidential run. There's no way that the Clintons would give such a valuable spot to anyone who hasn't 'earned it' through their support for Hillary unless there was some massive need for someone else. The Clintons have held a great deal of power by having a "best possible friend, worst possible enemy" approach to loyalty. In a presidential race they can't afford to be vindictive - but they can reserve the greatest rewards for their most loyal friends. If it's time to pick and Clinton is in a hard-fought race and worried then sure, she'll look outside the collection of loyalists if there's someone who can give her what she views as a much-needed boost. But if she's in a spot like Obama in 2008 where she doesn't view the VP pick as something that needs to pay political dividends to get over the finish line, it's going to a loyalist. Fulchrum posted:Which was being served when Bill Clinton gave the speech of 2012 in favor of Barack Obama? That was a quid pro quo: Obama agreed to support Hillary in 2016 (he later got out of this in exchange for that horrible joint press conference when she quit). I think in 2010, it was noted that Clinton made tons of appearances at events for the people who supported Hillary and not a single appearance at someone's events who didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
The next Democrat's VP slot will be worth only half of the usual bucket of warm piss. Dems can win in 2016 and again in 2020, which is what we need to get a sane SCOTUS majority, but 2024 on top of all of those? Five in a row? I'm optimistic, but not THAT optimistic. No party's held onto the White House for 20 uninterrupted years in a row since FDR-Truman, and before that, not since Jefferson-Madison-Monroe-Q.Adams. Voters like to hand the Oval Office over to the other party every 8 years or so just to make sure they still can. Even during eras of one-party dominance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
This is actually probably true, but nobody with Presidential ambitions is gonna decline the Vice Presidency because statistical historical analysis something something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:The next Democrat's VP slot will be worth only half of the usual bucket of warm piss. The Republicans had the Presidency for all but 8 out of 44 years in the Reconstruction era/Gilded Age. If you give Dubya as that 8, that's a thing that is arguably ongoing today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
VP slot is a good launching point for Republicans, sure. But when was the last time a Democratic VP was elected to a first term as POTUS? Just once: Martin Van Buren. We've always preferred fresh faces, even before the right-wing smear machine started convincing their listeners that Democratic Presidents' names are swear words.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Our data set of elections is so small to make drawing trends out of it virtually useless. You can only get even a moderately sized sample by going back so far the data has no relationship to what is occurring today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:VP slot is a good launching point for Republicans, sure. On the other hand, they have a pretty good track record of getting in after deaths in office and still being able to eke out a voted term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:VP slot is a good launching point for Republicans, sure. It only happened once for Republicans too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
computer parts posted:It only happened once for Republicans too. Bush I, Nixon. That's off the top of my head, there may be more. edit: Also whatever you think about 2000, Gore clearly had a better shot at getting the Presidency because he was the VP than otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:48
|
|