|
That strategy is bound to fail. They could box either Cruz or Trump out, but boxing both out will be next to impossible. Assuming Fiorina, Bush, and Kasich's supporters all switch over to Rubio, and Cruz and Trump quickly cannibalize Carson's supporters, you're still looking at a three-way horse race where each candidate polls roughly the same.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
People are forgetting that Trump's numbers were starting to slip before the Paris attack happened. Unless a Western nation is attacked again in the next few months, people will get bored with him again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Fox Ironic posted:This. They need a scandal on Trump to blow him up, I'm thinking they plant some kiddie porn on his computer or pull an Assange. 1) You think they love Trump less than the Duggars? 2) You think the stuff he's barrelled through already isn't scandalous?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:That strategy is bound to fail. They could box either Cruz or Trump out, but boxing both out will be next to impossible. Assuming Fiorina, Bush, and Kasich's supporters all switch over to Rubio, and Cruz and Trump quickly cannibalize Carson's supporters, you're still looking at a three-way horse race where each candidate polls roughly the same. Except Cruz and Trump don't cannibalize Carson's supporters, and that would still leave Cruz significantly behind Trump and Rubio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
i am voting for carson now his new campaign song has sold me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC9pjf3qkXs
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
You think this coin will average out to 50-50 if we keep flipping it? It just landed on heads three times in a row, at some point you have to ask if there's any plausible scenario where it comes up tails.KaptainKrunk posted:That strategy is bound to fail. They could box either Cruz or Trump out, but boxing both out will be next to impossible. Assuming Fiorina, Bush, and Kasich's supporters all switch over to Rubio, and Cruz and Trump quickly cannibalize Carson's supporters, you're still looking at a three-way horse race where each candidate polls roughly the same. Those aren't reasonable assumptions. Voters don't sit and move around in solid blocks like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:So all they'd have to do is deny him an outright majority. If they keep his numbers down in larger states (Florida, Texas, California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc), then they might be able to convince smaller states to flip on a second ballot. See to me the problem with "flipping" a state in a "brokered" convention is that candidates either entirely or largely decide who their delegates are. Even in states where the campaigns don't literally submit a list of delegates, there's a lot of nudging going on. The delegates who show up at the RNC convention to back Trump aren't going to jump at the opportunity to vote for someone else. Of course, that's true of every candidate, and we haven't had a brokered convention in decades, so who the hell knows. But just because delegates are released from their pledges on the second ballot doesn't mean it's going to look a lot different without a HELL of a lot of lobbying. The other big thing is that the Republicans don't have many super-delegates (relative to the Dems). So these delegates you're talking about needing to flip could pretty easily be "Joe the Plumber"/"Jane the Hairdresser" types instead of legislators. There's not a hell of a lot of logrolling you can do in that situation, short of literally writing personal checks or something. Especially since Trump/Cruz supporters are the guys who're convinced that the Republican establishment has been loving them over the last 4/8/12 or even 16 years. I'm not saying it's impossible for the GOP establishment to regain control of a brokered convention, I just think it won't be easy at all. Based on the polling now, I think it's plausible that Trump offers Cruz VP and Carson the Surgeon General gig (as well as a book deal or something) and walks away with 51% of the delegates. Sonofsilversign posted:lmao Jeb! even getting burned by pollster nerds It's from The Onion. Peel posted:Joementum is wrong to say Trump has zero chance or an infinitesimal chance since there isn't enough data to be that confident in the model. But Trump still hasn't yet delivered anything more than lasting somewhat longer than a normal clown candidate. His showmanship and a hungry media converts this into a narrative of him having already turned the world upside down. It's a marketing angle just as much as 'Make America Great Again' is. Trump has outlasted the previous clown candidates - the 2012 set had an average of what 2-3 weeks on top? I don't think that means he'll necessarily go the distance, but he's at least quantitatively different from the Gingriches and Cains.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Bush, Fiorina, and Kasich supporters going to Rubio when/if they drop out isn't a reasonable assumption? I am less sure about what happens to Carson's support, of course. They're certainly more up for grabs than are those three's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Why would trump take Carson's voters if Carson dropped out? The only similarity between their appeals is "never held a political office, otherwise I can't see the religious people who like that nice man Ben going over to the blowhard jerk who didn't credit his success fully to god
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
What I'm wondering is: if trump doesn't make it this time, will he ever have another chance? Seems like things have come together in exactly the way needed for him to become at least somewhat lastingly popular for the primary. I can't imagine it'll work twice for him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Peel posted:You're assuming Trump did all those things because he shouted loudly while they were happening. Carson would definitely have imploded all by himself, he's followed a normal arc for a joke candidate. It's plausible that Trump contributed significantly to Jeb!'s vicious circle, but all that shows is that his showmanship can amplify some media spirals, not that he is going to win the nomination. I didn't say Trump had anything to do with Carson's fall in my post. I just said that Carson was the only one to come close to Trump's numbers and he's in the middle of a decline right now. It would take multiple candidates' consolidation for Rubio or Cruz to challenge Trump numberswise. Do we have any examples from previous primaries where the candidate who consistently held a large lead for 4 or more months pre-primary ended up not winning the nomination? Peel posted:You think this coin will average out to 50-50 if we keep flipping it? It just landed on heads three times in a row, at some point you have to ask if there's any plausible scenario where it comes up tails. Who are you responding to? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say with this. I understand that you're making a point about probability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Honestly I think the story so far is more the 'respectable' candidates doing badly than Trump doing well. They're letting themselves be trapped in downward spirals that scare off donors. A lot is being bet on Rubio, a newbie with a weak campaign organisation and not a great deal of scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
NewMars posted:What I'm wondering is: if trump doesn't make it this time, will he ever have another chance? Seems like things have come together in exactly the way needed for him to become at least somewhat lastingly popular for the primary. I can't imagine it'll work twice for him. He is absolutely going to make a third party run if he isn't the nominee, and we can only hope whatever mess of id/ego that drives him makes him into a perennial candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Mrit posted:People are forgetting that Trump's numbers were starting to slip before the Paris attack happened. Unless a Western nation is attacked again in the next few months, people will get bored with him again. They've "started to slip" about 3 different times now and we're still sitting here talking about him. And it absolutely does not take a major terrorist attack to goose this crowd, we aren't waiting for an international incident we're waiting for the next national news item with an obvious anti-obama/anti-progressive angle to take. They're so desperate for this poo poo they treat the France attack like it was a time machine to 2002, which was probably the only other time people could talk about loving internment camps in a positive way. And I suspect Trump knows this. He knows exactly when to drop a hitler and get angry when a news outlet picks it up and when to keep (relatively) quiet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Jeb! seems determined to blow the whole thing up, too. Instead of bowing out gracefully, he is determined to fight to the end and take Rubio with him if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Asteroid Mining - Wins Big, Thanks To Sen. Ted Cruz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHRPgcK6fNg
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
YESSSSS https://www.predictit.org/Contract/1475#data
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
I had a dream last night that I was eating dinner with Jeb Bush and his family, and he kept yelling commands at his cat but it obviously didn't follow any of them. Then he said Osama Bin Laden was "homegrown in the US of A."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Well, the problem is that Nate Silver wouldn't apply that same logic to the other candidates. Saying something like "Hillary Clinton only has about 60% of the only about 30% of Americans that identify as Democrats" would be just as true and just as misleading. The difference is that Hillary is supported by a variety of other indicators on top of polling, which Nate Silvers considers more closely-associated with winning the primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I didn't say Trump had anything to do with Carson's fall in my post. I just said that Carson was the only one to come close to Trump's numbers and he's in the middle of a decline right now. It would take multiple candidates' consolidation for Rubio or Cruz to challenge Trump numberswise. Found it.  Note also Huckabee popping up out of the little leagues near the end of the year. quote:Who are you responding to? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say with this. I understand that you're making a point about probability. That people are saying things like 'What plausible scenarios are there where Trump loses?' when it's not implausible at all that Trump loses. They're mistaking a run of success for a mark of invincible strength when maybe it doesn't mean much at all. If the coin keeps coming up heads for a dozen flips, then you can say that it's been rigged somehow. And if Trump keeps winning for the next three months, we can say he's turned expectation on their head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Brannock posted:At this point the question isn't really "How can Trump win the nomination?", it's "How can he lose the nomination?" Peel posted:
The net takeaway here is that 1) At this point, based on the limited data we have so far, it's Trump's race to lose, and 2) If Trump doesn't actively lose, it's hard to see how any other candidate has a path to actually *win*. The caveat is that we're still a long way out from the actual election and our data at this point is very limited. But that argument cuts both ways; it's not so much an argument against a Trump victory as an argument that *any* prediction at this stage should be considered highly suspect. Brannock posted:
I'd like to see this answered also. All the number-crunchers are pointing to brief flameouts like Guiliani or Paul or Gingrich. I mean, I can think of at least one obvious example: Hillary in 2008. But In that race there was a very clear not-Hillary very early on, and it swiftly turned into a two-person race and then an upset victory. Hillary may have held a lead at this point in 2007, but even then people were pointing to Obama as the obvious challenger. The Republican's window to rally around a not-Trump challenger is swiftly closing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
I assume the Nate Silver comment was directed at people who think Trump is some kind of wrecking ball hurled through American politics as a whole, rather than the strict nomination question. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to comment on the small proportion of people who are Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I had a dream last night that I was eating dinner with Jeb Bush and his family, and he kept yelling commands at his cat but it obviously didn't follow any of them. Then he said Osama Bin Laden was "homegrown in the US of A."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:I love that the establishment is running a guerilla campaign against an insurgent. I like to compare the GOP primary to the Mexican Revolution. Pancho Villa (Trump) and Zapata (Carson) are in the capitol having defeated the establishment, and don't know what to do. Carranza (Bush) and Obregon (Rubio) are licking their wounds and waiting in Veracruz with US support (PAC money) for them to inevitably screw up so they can swoop back in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:1) At this point, based on the limited data we have so far, it's Trump's race to lose I disagree. We have good data about the influence of endorsements on success in the Presidential primaries. Currently, Rubio and Jeb! have roughly the same number of endorsements. Trump has none.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Peel posted:That people are saying things like 'What plausible scenarios are there where Trump loses?' when it's not implausible at all that Trump loses. They're mistaking a run of success for a mark of invincible strength when maybe it doesn't mean much at all. I see the point you're trying to make here, although I think you're doing polls an injustice by comparing them to coinflips. Polling for any given candidate ebb and flow based on actual real life decisions and actions ... unless you're suggesting that candidate support is arbitrary, which I suppose is an argument that has some plausibility. When I ask "How can Trump lose the nomination?" I'm not trying to imply that he's the ordained victor, I'm saying that he's firmly in the lead and that something needs to change for him to fall out of the lead -- and that these somethings are going to be the results of deliberate decisions by other candidates. Especially since we've already seen that Trump has an uncanny ability to squirm out of scandals and thus is less likely than other candidates (Jeb!) to sink himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I disagree. We have good data about the influence of endorsements on success in the Presidential primaries. Currently, Rubio and Jeb! have roughly the same number of endorsements. Trump has none. What was the endorsement spread, at this time in 2008, for Giuliani and the other candidates? Is this data readily available without digging deep?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Here's what will happen: Trump strokes out during a speech has to withdraw from the primary. Carson declares that the Statue of Liberty was actually carved out of limestone by Johnny Appleseed in honor of a 'top-notch' prostitute he met in Cleveland. No other candidate is able to put together more than a bare plurality of votes. At the convention, after the 7th deadlocked ballot, a man walks onto the stage. This man has a vision: A fruitful future for America. A land where the government does not tax hard working Americans for the simple privilege of owning an automobile. Silence descends upon the convention, followed by lukewarm applause and 50.3% of the delegates choose their candidate: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The caveat is that we're still a long way out from the actual election and our data at this point is very limited. But that argument cuts both ways; it's not so much an argument against a Trump victory as an argument that *any* prediction at this stage should be considered highly suspect. I actually agree with this, I think Joe is overegging it when he says Trump has no chance at all, rather than a small chance. The standard model could very well be wrong, in general or for this primary in particular. Trump's success isn't incredible, but the failure of any of the 'sensible' candidates to impress is I think more worrying. I suspect that if Trump has a game-changing power this cycle, it lies in convincing people that he has one, and that he's destroying all comers and bullying people out of the race and so on. So Bush has a poll decline and rather than just toughing it out and building up his organisation in primary states ready for the real fight he has to convince skittish donors that he's not imploding completely in the face of Almighty Trump or face running out of money. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've read, I forget where, some articles claiming that in the wake of Citizens United donors are much more prone to meddling and micromanaging and this has been causing problems for primary campaigns, since donors don't actually know poo poo about electoral campaign strategy. quote:I'd like to see this answered also. All the number-crunchers are pointing to brief flameouts like Guiliani or Paul or Gingrich. That's the thing. Trump wishes he had Giuliani's sustained poll domination. Peel fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Nov 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Brannock posted:What was the endorsement spread, at this time in 2008, for Giuliani and the other candidates? Is this data readily available without digging deep? Yup. Check it out here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ Scroll to "The shapes of past endorsement primaries" section. McCain had nearly double Giuliani's support, with Romney a close second. There was, however, another big reason that Giuliani was never going to win in 2008 and it's because he's pro-choice. Trump pretends not to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Actually I think you will find that they will nominate Jeb Bush's political idol, the lifeless corpse of Ronald Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yup. Check it out here: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I don't get these new loss.jpg edits. holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Carly didn't pour water for them all this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
stoutfish posted:trump is thank you! finally somebody says it!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Feral_Shofixti posted:Here's what will happen: Members of the audience are heard to whisper to each other things like "Who?" and "This is that metric system guy, right?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I disagree. We have good data about the influence of endorsements on success in the Presidential primaries. Currently, Rubio and Jeb! have roughly the same number of endorsements. Trump has none. I think endorsements are a symptom, not a cause. More to the point though, my understanding is that in past races the overall number of endorsements has been much higher at this stage. Rubio and Jeb! may have equal numbers of endorsements but neither of them has that Many for this time in the race, correct? Or do they have a significant number?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Philthy posted:Rubio going full fascist. We are so far beyond where I thought we would be. really? I mean, do you guys not know any republicans? poo poo I was eating lunch yesterday and the people next to me were saying that "Obama was wrong to say not allowing muslims into the country is unamerican. But its not surprising, no one even knows if he was even born in this country!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think endorsements are a symptom, not a cause. More to the point though, my understanding is that in past races the overall number of endorsements has been much higher at this stage. Rubio and Jeb! may have equal numbers of endorsements but neither of them has that Many for this time in the race, correct? Or do they have a significant number? The Fivethirtyeight link Joementum has posted has that data once you understand their special sauce (they weight Representatives as 1 point, Senators as 5 points, and Governors as 10 points). So 73 days before Iowa (today) the leader is Jeb! He has 40 points. Contrast to Romney's 81 and McCain's 93 at the same point in 2011 and 2007. Also, compare the two sides of the aisle now and look at Jeb's compared to Clinton's 446, who actually more than doubles the entire GOP field combined.. This despite there being far more Republican Congressmen, Senators, and Governors than Democratic ones at present. That's what Establishment support looks like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think endorsements are a symptom, not a cause. Nope! The Party Decides folks found that there's zero correlation between early standing in the polls and endorsements, but that early endorsements are correlated with stronger poll numbers down the line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 02:55
|
|
