|
Kobayashi posted:What's Nate Silver saying that is causing meltdowns? I can't keep up with this thread. He said current goon favorites are not very likely to win their respective nominations as of current data. Cue meltdowns about how he claerly doesn't know anything because otherwise he'd agree with them.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Unskew them polls
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:I'd vote for Huey. Same https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
A Neurotic Jew posted:"Nate Silver only knew what he was doing when he predicted things my way!" I feel that Nate is good at his job, much of which has been predicting the results of competitions (of sorts) following established rules. I feel there's a bunch of stuff that's going on this election, much of which was a long time in coming, that changes the rules he's used to using. I respect Nate and his opinions, and I will continue to do so. However, I disagree with him currently over the chances he's giving Trump and Bernie. Dahbadu fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He said current goon favorites are not very likely to win their respective nominations as of current data. Cue meltdowns about how he claerly doesn't know anything because otherwise he'd agree with them. Honestly, 5% for Sanders is probably too high. My issue was solely with the idea that Sanders is somehow more likely to be Democratic nominee than Trump GOP nominee. Vox Nihili posted:So first of all, that "prediction" was acknowledged as a shoot-from-the-hip estimate without any real statistical basis, so it should be treated with a grain of salt. Secondly, consider the number of republican contenders with a legitimate shot versus the number of democratic candidates. Third, look at the republican party's own interests. Bernie may be an outsider, but at least he is actively in favor of what the democratic party wants. Trump has promised big tariffs, for example, which makes him #1 on the republican party's hit list. In short, the party will do whatever it takes to oppose him. Finally, consider the relative unimportance of nationwide pollling this early on. Most of the experts say that it has almost no predictive value at this point. It's not the national polls that interest me, it's Trump's massive lead in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire combined with his basically unlimited funding (for the purposes of the election...even the most expensive presidential campaign will be in the hundreds of millions range, which Trump can easily afford) that can't be cut off. He's in a far more enviable position than insurgent candidates in previous cycles like Huckabee 2008 who had no appeal north of the Mason Dixon line and no money to capitalize on his Iowa win or Santorum 2012 who had basically no money or infrastructure at all and was completely reliant on SuperPAC sugar daddies to keep his anti-Romney candidacy alive. There's also the stunning relative weakness of the establishment candidates vis a vis Romney 2012. Romney was always the Establishment's one candidate in 2012 and that never faltered (especially after Chris Christie decided to pass on running).   Jeb Bush at his most popular (back in the spring before Trump jumped in) could barely hit 15%. Mitt Romney, at his absolute lowest point during Rick Perry's late entrance into the race (around the first of September, so exactly four years ago), was polling at 17%, and rarely ever dipped below 20%. Jeb Bush is a far, far weaker candidate than Romney was at this point. He's in single digits in Iowa, a state establishment candidate Romney tied Santorum in in 2012, and is barely out of double digits in New Hampshire, which is the Establishment Candidate must-win for the last two cycles for the GOP. His national average is closer to Bachmann 2012 than Romney 2012. I'm not saying Trump will necessarily be the nominee, I'm saying that the 2012 comparisons have a big Mitt Romney-shaped hole in the Establishment Candidate slot that Jeb Bush does not fill and that because you can't just have "Not-Trump" win, but an actual living human being running against him, Trump's chances are a hell of a lot higher than 2% of getting the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:I feel that Nate is good at his job, much of which has been predicting the results of competitions (or sorts) following established rules. Unfortunately for Trump and Bernie, the ACTUAL rules haven't changed much at all. Bernie has a whopping zero superdelegates supporting him and no money. Trump has money, but the entire rest of his party is sharpening the knives and waiting for him to stumble, and he has another five months to stumble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Unfortunately for Trump and Bernie, the ACTUAL rules haven't changed much at all. Bernie has a whopping zero superdelegates supporting him and no money. Trump has money, but the entire rest of his party is sharpening the knives and waiting for him to stumble, and he has another five months to stumble. The thing is that he's spent the last three months in a state of continuous stumble and nothing has happened. He said John McCain wasn't a war hero because he got captured, he openly accused a rival journalist of being on her period, he had a legally documented rape allegation against him surface, he got completely as exposed as a former liberal, and he's doing better than ever. There's no reason to think that Donald Trump is going to lose all his support by doing/saying something awful/dumb, because he's been doing/saying awful/dumb things for months and it's only affected him positively. And what knives can be sharpened against him? Donald Trump can't be attacked on being awful/dumb because he's already displayed the worst and most attackable side of himself and lost 0 support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Unfortunately for Trump and Bernie, the ACTUAL rules haven't changed much at all. Bernie has a whopping zero superdelegates supporting him and no money. Trump has money, but the entire rest of his party is sharpening the knives and waiting for him to stumble, and he has another five months to stumble. I think opinion shapers that matter for the GOP primary that can take out Trump could have taken him out already. If they were unified and persistent enough in their narrative, they could've taken him out already despite his charisma and tweets. I think they, for the most part, haven't done this because they actually like him. I'm more worried about the knives coming out for Bernie and Bernie having something like a Dean scream moment. Although, it will probably have to be more substantive than a Dean scream this time due to people being as fed up as they are. Also, Bernie is a better candidate than Dean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Unfortunately for Trump and Bernie, the ACTUAL rules haven't changed much at all. Bernie has a whopping zero superdelegates supporting him and no money. Trump has money, but the entire rest of his party is sharpening the knives and waiting for him to stumble, and he has another five months to stumble. What could Trump possibly do at this point to cause him to stumble that he hasn't already done?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:What could Trump possibly do at this point to cause him to stumble that he hasn't already done? Show weakness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Romney BRIEFLY trailed Perry something like 30% to 20%, and that was BEFORE the public got a good look at Perry, when he was merely an idea and a bunch of slick yet stupid commercials and being hyped up the the conservative media. Romney BRIEFLY trailed Gingrich something like 30% to 20% as well when Gingrich started dropping turds on the media during the early debates. He also briefly trailed him by a couple points when Newt handily won the SC debate and then won the SC primary. Otherwise, Romney was basically in control from start to finish. Trump has been ahead of Bush for more than a FULL MONTH now and is slowly and consistently GROWING his lead. Bush in no, way, shape, or form looks like a man in control who is simply in the midst of a temporary flirtation with an "anti-Bush" candidate of the week in the way there was an anti-Romney flavor of the week in 2012. From this side of the aisle, Trump is no Herman Cain or Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich. He has resources, he has teeth, he weathers things that dwarf the stumbles and scandels that crushed Cain and Perry. The only hope the anti-Trump establishment has is that someone can emerge to take him out the way Romney took out Gingrich. When I look at JEB! and Scott Walker and try to imagine them emulating Romney's take-down of Newt against Trump, I laugh. These pansies would be utterly humiliated by the time Trump finished with them,
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:Romney BRIEFLY trailed Perry something like 30% to 20%, and that was BEFORE the public got a good look at Perry, when he was merely an idea and a bunch of slick yet stupid commercials and being hyped up the the conservative media. lol this is gonna be a good year, keep em coming champ
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Pavlov posted:Show weakness. TITCR. Seriously. And it's pretty clear he won't do it voluntarily. Someone has to MAKE HIM look weak. If the field is set, Trump WILL be the nominee. You can take that to the bank with a stone-cold lead-pipe lock Boosted_C5 guarantee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
If you're voting for someone because of their percieved "electability" and not because they are good candidates then yer skum
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
I think what the establishment Repubs are going to end up doing is figuring out a way to play nice with Trump. Maybe make some backroom deals for more influence in his cabinet or something. Much of the Koch money will probably go into down ticket races or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
At this point I think we can say that Trump is doing a little better than Perry et al. did in 2011, but his polling does resemble another failed Republican candidate from 2007:
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If you're voting for someone because of their percieved "electability" and not because they are good candidates then yer skum Ok, crazy guy who thinks those are entirely unrelated qualities and yet is mad that no one he likes is in power. Sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:At this point I think we can say that Trump is doing a little better than Perry et al. did in 2011, but his polling does resemble another failed Republican candidate from 2007: Do you remember that cycle? Rudy Giuliani pulled out of Iowa and New Hampshire (the first two contests, the ones whose winners will have their faces plastered on everything and be treated as serious candidates) to put all his effort into Florida, voting way at the end of the month. Huckabee won Iowa, McCain won New Hampshire, and the two of them plus Romney (second place in both) were the only three candidates anyone had time for. Giuliani placed fourth in Florida as everyone expected he would with such a dumbass strategy. Giuliani was an amazingly poor fit for Iowa, obviously (mayor of NYC vs a very rural state). Trump is not only not pulling out of Iowa and New Hampshire, he's leading both and is doubling down. He has Santorum 2012's Iowa field guy, he is holding mega-town halls in NH, he is giving children helicopter rides at the Iowa State Fair. This is not a man about to make Giuliani's absurd decision to bow out of IA and NH.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Honestly if the GOP establishment really wanted Trump out the best way would be to hire a Brooklyn thug to punch him in the jaw publicly and hope he breaks something. The moment your common bar-rat can call trump a 'pussy' is the moment he's out of the running.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Pavlov posted:Show weakness. Honestly, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:My point was simply that claiming that it's more likely that Sanders is the Democratic nominee than Trump as GOP nominee is prima facie absurd. Likely due in no small part because if Hilary suddenly dies and Bernie has a shot at the nomination, the Dems will back him. If he's out front and stumbles they'll probably try to help him if he'd still look viable for the general. If Trump stumbles and looks vulnerable the GOP is going to stick as many knives in him as possible. Trump's also dominating like Clinton and Guilani did in 2007 and unlike Clinton (or noun verb 911) Trump is going to have zero establishment support as soon as his position is threatened. Either way, watching goons go full Ron Paulbot for Bernie is a thing of beauty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If you're voting for someone because of their percieved "electability" and not because they are good candidates then yer skum Are you 15 years old
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
The best part is that the GOP is already feebly trying to knife Trump, but they're still using ones that would work on Generic Republican Governor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The best part is that the GOP is already feebly trying to knife Trump, but they're still using ones that would work on Generic Republican Governor. The GOP is really bad at shivving bad candidates because they've gotten pretty comfortable with being able to tunnel everything through Fox. The only real difference this time is that high-information republican voters (aka the only people who are actually paying attention at this juncture) are getting their news/opinion more from the internet and other, more radical, outlets. It's nice to see this particular chicken come home to roost, though. That said, I'm pretty confident that Trump won't make it past Iowa. Assuming that there's nothing incredibly unpredictable in the next few months, someone else will snipe Iowa away and that'll basically be  . Nobody likes a loser.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:TITCR. You act like that has any sort of meaning after 2012. Or ever
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I feel bad that Bernie is probably not going to make it if only because minority dems seem to favor Hillary for reasons
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Just saying but, women and minorities are in fact the majority of the Democrat base. Mostly because the GOP is all in on catering to most white males.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Look at all these chumps who don't think Deez Nutz gonna be the next President. Why would you settle for some old nut, when you could have Deez Nuts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Just saying but, women and minorities are in fact the majority of the Democrat base. Mostly because the GOP is all in on catering to most white males. i think we've found out why Trump has such a groundswell of goodwill amongst goons
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I feel bad that Bernie is probably not going to make it if only because minority dems seem to favor Hillary for reasons Black people, in general, seem to like Bernie a lot once they get to know him. They just need to know of him (beyond the fact that he's an old white guy). With the way things are going, barring something like a Dean scream, I think 5 months should be enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I feel bad that Bernie is probably not going to make it if only because minority dems seem to favor Hillary for reasons The Dems haven't even had a debate yet. It's hard to tell where Dems will stand w/r/t Hillary vs Sanders until we can actually see them interact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:TITCR. I want to believe, Boosted, I want to belieeeeeeeeeeeeve. But you also once upon a time called Virginia for Romney, saying Obama would have no chance in taking it. And I felt like you....betrayed my trust. With all that unskewing. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
How likely is it that various GOP policymakers will fall on their swords and do whatever necessary to kick Trump out? I feel this is the great unknown, but a magical possibility nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Look at all these chumps who don't think Deez Nutz gonna be the next President. Why would you settle for some old nut, when you could have Deez Nuts? I had a wonderful dream that so many fed-up voters wrote in Deez Nuts that he won, and the nation had a collective "what the gently caress do we do now?" freakout.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Trump is different.... He has the money, the personality, the Teflon coating, and the brains enough to target the early caucus and primary states. He even picked up Chuck Laudner, the GOP operative who won Iowa for Santorum... Trump is in it to win it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Dahbadu posted:Black people, in general, seem to like Bernie a lot once they get to know him. They just need to know of him (beyond the fact that he's an old white guy). With the way things are going, barring something like a Dean scream, I think 5 months should be enough. black people who have heard of hilary like her 85% sauce http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/12/bernie-sanders-big-challenge-explained-in-1-chart/
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
"this time it's different!" - a bunch of people every 4 years shortly before learning that it's actually not different at all
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
A question since I don't know much about American politics. Why is Sanders trailing Clinton in minorities and women votes? I guess that Clinton would get more votes from women since she is one herself (and there has never been a woman as USA president in the past, right?), but why minorities? I'm asking since I've been reading up a little on Sanders, and it seems that he has followed a progressive agenda in his career, especially considering things like racial/gender rights/equality. Is it just the fact that he is a lot less known? Also, another question about the democratic nomination. Are there any polls at this time that compare how Clinton/Sanders would do in the presidential election (if they win the nomination) against GOP?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:A question since I don't know much about American politics. Why is Sanders trailing Clinton in minorities and women votes? Bernie has done a terrible job of discussing issues that are important to minorities, since he believes wealth inequality is more important than racism. quote:Also, another question about the democratic nomination. Are there any polls at this time that compare how Clinton/Sanders would do in the presidential election (if they win the nomination) against GOP? Yes. Hillary does better than Bernie in almost every conceivable matchup. However, one recent poll has Trump winning in a race between The Donald, Hillary, and Deez Nuts, while Bernie wins the election if it's Trump/Sanders/Nuts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Dante80 posted:A question since I don't know much about American politics. Why is Sanders trailing Clinton in minorities and women votes? - Hilary wins women because she is a woman. - Bill 'was' beloved by minorities. "First black president am I rite guys?" - Clinton's have been cultivating ties with the black/Hispanic political class for over 20 years. - The BLM thing actually did hurt Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 23:29
|
|